Kennet Core Strategy

Contents

Foreword

1. Introduction ...... 1

2. Methodology ...... 1

3. Details of the Process of Stakeholder Engagement ...... 2

4. Response to Stakeholder Engagement ...... 6

4.1 Letters & Questionnaires ...... 6

4.2 Exhibitions & Workshops ...... 6

5. Lessons Learned ...... 7

6. Appendices

Appendix 1 – Options Pamphlet & Questionnaire...... 9

Appendix 2 – Evidence Base ...... 15

Appendix 3 – Press Advert ...... 19

Appendix 4 – Press Release & Gazette and Herald Front Page Headline...... 21

Appendix 5 – Distribution of Pamphlet ...... 23

Appendix 6 – List of Stakeholders Informed of Consultation by Category in the Statement of Community Involvement ...... 25

Appendix 7 – Information sent to Parishes ...... ……………………………………35

Appendix 8 – Members Bulletin...... 37

Appendix 9 – Staff Bulletin ...... 39

Appendix 10 – Poster and Leaflets ...... 41

Appendix 11 – Photographs of Displays and Workshops ...... 45

Appendix 12 – Reduced Version of Exhibition Panels...... 49

Appendix 13 – List of Information Points ...... 67

Appendix 14 – Report of Devizes Community Area Exhibition And Workshops ...... 69

Appendix 15 – Report of Marlborough Community Area Exhibition and Workshops ...... 85

Appendix 16 – Report of Pewsey Community Area Exhibition and Workshops ...... 97

Appendix 17 – Report of Tidworth Community Area Exhibition and Workshops...... 113

Appendix 18 – Material Handed Out at Exhibition and Workshops ...... 125

Appendix 19 – List of Respondents ...... 139

Appendix 20 – Questionnaire Summary Tables...... 149

Appendix 21 – Workshop & Exhibition Analysis...... 155

Appendix 22 – Consultation Process Feedback ...... 167

Foreword

This document contains Kennet’s Statement of Community Involvement for the Spatial Options for Future Development consultation carried out in May and June 2008. It was approved for publication by the Planning Policy Executive Committee of Kennet District Council on 25th Sept 2008. It sets out how the Council consulted and involved the public. An analysis of response received is contained within a separate document ‘Core Strategy Options Consultation: Consultation Responses and the Council’s Decisions on Considering Them’.

Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement 1

1 Introduction

1.1 This report documents the activities that took place during May and June 2008 to involve the Kennet community in considering choices for the spatial options for future development in the District.

1.2 The Council’s Statement of Community Involvement identifies five broad opportunities for community involvement in the preparation of development plan documents:

Stage 1: Evidence Gathering Stage 2: Early Community Involvement Stage 3: Issues and Options Stage 4: Preferred Option Stage 5: Submission to the Secretary of State

1.3 To help residents understand the process, for this DPD, Kennet has separated out the ‘issues raising’ and ‘options development’ elements of Stage 3. ‘Issues Raising’ consultation took place in April and May 2007 and used information gathered through early community involvement and evidence gathering. The issues raised through that consultation was used to develop spatial options for the Kennet Core Strategy.

2 Methodology

2.1 The Kennet Statement of Community Involvement identifies what methods of consultation should be considered at each stage of consultation. For a discussion of the options for future development in Kennet for this options consultation the following methods were used:

Awareness Raising  Press and media  Website  Written consultation  Existing networks

Promotional Material  Information pamphlet  Interactive exhibition  Posters  Leaflets

Direct Involvement  Stakeholder and public workshops  Questionnaire

2.2 A key component of the consultation was the production of community area overviews for each of the community areas in Kennet. These drew together published information about each area and planning issues facing each community. The overviews began to draw a picture of the function of the main

1 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework 2 Statement of Community Involvement

settlements within each community area. From these a summary pamphlet was produced which included an assessment of the potential outcomes for different spatial options for development on each of the main communities. A copy of the Options Pamphlet is attached at Appendix 1. Appendix 2 documents the evidence that was used to inform the community area overviews. The Options Pamphlet included a questionnaire which sought views on the issues raised in the community area overviews and on the future development options considered. Everyone was also invited to submit general comments in writing.

3 Details of Process of Stakeholder Engagement

3.1 There was continuing publicity on the options pamphlet to inform the community of the importance of the Core Strategy. The emphasis was on making sure everyone knew they had the opportunity to influence the content of the Core Strategy by expressing a view on where development should be allowed in the future. The consultation period ran from Monday 5th May to Monday 16th June 2008. However, to raise awareness about the consultation, some material was released early.

3.2 A summary of the consultation programme is included in Table 1 below. Detailed information such as example letters and adverts and lists of recipients are contained in the Appendices.

Activity Action Times/Dates Awareness Raising – press & media Press Advert Salisbury Journal Thurs 1st May 2008 (Appendix 3) Gazette & Herald Thurs 1st May 2008 Andover Advertiser Fri 2nd May 2008

Reminder in Andover Advertiser Fri 6th June 2008 Press release Article sent to above three papers Sent to coincide with first (Appendix 4) and local radio stations. week of consultation period. Front page article in Gazette & Herald Thurs 1st May 2008

Interviews with radio stations during consultation period Wiltshire Sound Tues 6th May 2008 Castledown Radio. Tues 3rd June 2008 The consultation was also included Tues 6th May 2008 in local bulletins on Wiltshire Sound and local radio in Salisbury (covers Tidworth area)

2 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement 3

The Star Pamphlet distributed to all Thurs 1st May 2008 and (Appendix 5) households via free newspaper, ongoing during first 2 parish councils and volunteers in weeks of consultation Tidworth Area.

Awareness Raising – web Remote Web access to the options Web site live from 5th participation pamphlet, questionnaire and May 2008 community area overviews throughout the consultation period.

Questionnaire could be completed on line and comments returned.

Link to documents from the Kennet front page. Awareness Raising – Written Consultation Stakeholders A variety of letters and e-mails (Appendix 6 were sent out. & 7) Specific consultation bodies (Reg 1st May 2008, 147 25(a)) received an options contacts. (Includes pamphlet and an invitation to adjoining authorities attend one of the workshops. and parish councils)

General consultation bodies (Reg 1st May 2008, 308 25 (b)) received a pamphlet and contacts (Includes an invitation to attend one of the service providers and all workshops. members of Kennet’s Community Area Partnerships) Others on the Council’s data base who had been involved in 23rd April 2008, 600 previous consultations or have contacts asked to be kept informed of progress on the LDF were sent notification of the consultation and a summary leaflet.

Reminder e-mails (where e-mail addresses known) sent to all From 7th May 2008 community area partnership members the week before exhibition and evening meetings in their areas.

Awareness Raising – Existing Networks Members Kennet circulate a weekly Item accompanied

3 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework 3 Statement of Community Involvement

Bulletin newsletter to all District and Members Bulletin on (Appendix 8) Council Members to draw 22nd April 2008 attention to current activities that they should be aware of. Staff Bulletin All staff within Kennet DC Item in Staff Bulletin on (Appendix 9) informed of consultation by e-mail 16th May 2008. and reminded of consultation in Staff Bulletin Principal A leaflet about the consultation Marlborough Parishes was circulated with agendas to all Full Council (Appendix councillors on Devizes, Tidworth, 28th April 10) Marlborough TCs and Ludgershall Agenda deadline by and Pewsey Parish Councils as the 23rd April principle development areas. Pewsey Planning Committee Bishops Cannings and Roundway 7th May PCs were also contacted as part of Agenda deadline by the Devizes Urban Area. 28th April Devizes Planning Committee 13th May Agenda deadline 2nd May Tidworth Full Council 3rd June Agenda deadline 26th May Ludgershall Full Council 13th May Agenda deadline 5th May Roundway By e-mail 22nd April Bishops Cannings By e-mail 22nd April Promotional Material - Exhibitions (12-5pm) Exhibitions St Peter’s Church, Marlborough Tues 13th May 2008 (Appendix St Peter’s Church, Marlborough Weds 14th May 2008 12) Bouverie Hall, Pewsey Monday 19th May 2008 Bouverie Hall. Pewsey Thursday 22nd May Town Hall, Devizes 2008 Town Hall, Devizes Tuesday 3rd Jun 2008 Tidworth Leisure Centre Thursday 5th Jun 2008 Memorial Hall, Ludgershall Mon 9th Jun 2008 Thurs 12th Jun 2008 Displays Smaller displays were on show at: From 6th May 2008 (Appendix

4 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement 3

11)  Devizes, Pewsey, Marlborough and Tidworth Libraries,  Devizes, Marlborough and Tidworth Leisure Centres and  Kennet District Council Offices throughout the consultation period.

Copies of the leaflet and options pamphlet packs were available.

Promotional Material – Poster & Leaflets Poster A poster was distributed to all 1st May 2008 (Appendix parish councils for display in their 10) areas. During May & June A week before each workshop 2008 shops in the local area were visited and asked to display a small poster advertising the event Pamphlets Copies of the pamphlet were From 6th May 2008 (Appendix 1 available at all libraries in Kennet & 13) and at the Council’s offices in Devizes. Posters were also on view at these venues. Leaflets The Council have 12 information During May & June (Appendix points across the district. Summary 2008 13) leaflets were available at all 12. Direct Involvement – Workshops (7pm-8.30pm) Marlborough St Peter’s Church, Marlborough Tues 13th May 2008 (Appendix St Peter’s Church, Marlborough Weds 14th May 2008 14 & 18) Bouverie Hall, Pewsey Monday 19th May 2008 Pewsey Bouverie Hall. Pewsey Thursday 22nd May (Appendix Town Hall, Devizes 2008 15 & 18) Town Hall, Devizes Tuesday 3rd Jun 2008 Devizes Tidworth Leisure Centre Thursday 5th Jun 2008 (Appendix Memorial Hall, Ludgershall Mon 9th Jun 2008 16 & 18) Thurs 12th Jun 2008 Tidworth (Appendix 17 & 18) Direct Involvement - Other Marlborough Presentation to Marlborough Town Mon 2nd June 2008 TCl Council

5 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework 4 Statement of Community Involvement

4 Response to Stakeholder Engagement

Letters and Questionnaires

4.1 A total of 409 separate responses were received, excluding people who took part in the evening workshops and daytime exhibitions. Many of the questionnaires were returned anonymously. A list of those who provided their contact details and submitted a response is included at Appendix 19. A factual report of the questionnaire returns is provided at Appendix 20. Further analysis of the consultation replies is in Committee Report PSM/13/08.

Exhibitions & Workshops

4.2 The exhibitions that ran between 12 and 5pm on 8 days were not very well attended. The format of the exhibition sought to encourage people to respond to questions and place comments on the boards provided and were tailored to the community area where the exhibition took place. A version of the exhibition boards can be found at Appendix 12.

4.3 Participation in the workshops was variable. The table below illustrates that the public meetings in Devizes and Pewsey were well attended but others were not. The interest in Devizes and Pewsey was a consequence of recent housing proposals rather than a response to the questions the options consultation was asking. Not everyone registered their attendance at each meeting.

Workshop Participants Range of Interests Marlborough 4 Parish councils and archaeological Stakeholder interests Marlborough 6 Town council and local residents Public Pewsey 9 Mainly parish councils and local Stakeholder councillors Pewsey Public 50+ Those who registered their attendance were local residents Devizes 11 Town & parish councils, business Stakeholder interests, voluntary organisations Devizes Public 70+ Those who registered their attendance were local residents Tidworth 4 Town and parish councils Stakeholder Tidworth Public 4 Local residents

4.4 Verbatim reports of the exhibitions and evening meetings held in each community area are included at Appendices 14-17. Drafts of these documents were circulated to all those who had provided contact details when attending a meeting to make sure that the reports were a true record of the events of the evening. A brief summary of the debates at the evening meetings is included at Appendix 21. A fuller assessment is included in committee report PSM/13/08.

6 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement 5

5 Lessons Learned

5.1 In all consultations it is important to consider whether activities were successful and, if not, why not. Appendix 22 analyses the comments submitted during the consultation specifically about the process.

5.2 In relation to the evening meetings a number of messages are clear: a The length of the evening meetings was about right; one and half hours on this occasion. b People who attended the workshops continued to support evening meetings rather than twilight or day time meetings, although this is probably self selecting as the people who attended preferred the evening. It is perhaps more accurate to question whether the meetings were at the right time because so few people attended.

c Meetings were well run and facilitated by members of staff.

This suggests the meetings themselves are well run. The greater problem is the need to motivate more people to attend. It became clear during the preparations for the workshops and exhibitions that the town and parish councils have their annual parish meetings in April/May. These would have been an opportunity to use an existing network of meetings to raise awareness about the consultation. There may also have been an opportunity to ask these meetings to carry out a simple ‘planning for real’ exercise to make people aware of the importance of the forthcoming consultation.

5.3 In relation to the letters and questionnaire responses the following comments stood out: a Lack of space on the questionnaire for additional comments; b Difficult to compare overviews of each community area because each document contained different information c The size and layout of the pamphlet made it difficult to handle and pass on to others d Some factual errors in the data e Pamphlet too complicated, difficult to understand and uses too much planning jargon f Importance of the subject matter not clear

These comments show that those preparing the consultation material were perhaps too close to the subject and there needed to be a ‘critical friend’ who could help simplify the information that was being prepared. The Council had already separated out the ‘issues’ and ‘options’ stage of consultation on the core strategy to try to simplify the process but this was not enough. Interestingly the Community Area Overviews deliberately contained different information as they tried to reflect and highlight the issues important to the different areas – affordability is a much bigger issue in Marlborough than Tidworth for example.

5.4 The most consistent criticisms related to the use of The Star newspaper to distribute the pamphlet. It had been suggested in earlier consultations that

7 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework 5 Statement of Community Involvement

information should be sent to every household. As part of the ‘Issues Raising’ stage of consultation for the core strategy an article had been included in Kennet Times, a free newspaper distributed by Kennet twice a year. Although this reached a large number of households it did not give the opportunity to respond directly to the issues raised in the article. The use of The Star free paper seemed an opportunity to reach many more households within Kennet and provide material to respond directly to the consultation.

5.5 The Council were advised that The Star was distributed to the general post code areas indicated in Appendix 5. Where clear gaps in distribution were known in advance alternative arrangements were made. In the Tidworth Community Area the pamphlets were delivered by local volunteers. In other areas parish clerks were contacted and asked to take copies of the pamphlet to their annual parish meeting or distribute directly to local parish councillors.

5.6 In reality the distribution of The Star within the identified post code areas was patchy, for example, in Pewsey the paper was delivered to properties on Swan Meadow but not Raffin Lane. As many respondents have pointed out, people dismiss the inserts in the free paper as simply advertising and throw them away without taking any notice. This is a very important lesson learned where the Council need to consider alternative methods in the future

8 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

P P

Appendix 1 – Options Pamphlet & Questionnaire

Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

P P

11 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P P

12 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

P P

13 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P P

14 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

Appendix 2 – Evidence Base P P Devizes Community Area Overview:

2001 Census 2

Annual Business Inquiry Workspace Analysis 2003, Settlement Functionality Assessment for RSS.

Devizes Community Area and its Villages, Wiltshire County Council, 2005

Devizes Community Area Plan 2003-2015

Devizes Community Area Strategic Action Plan Prepared by the Devizes Community Area Partnership in 2007

Devizes Paramics Model, Local Model Forecasting and Test Report, Mouchel Parkman for Wiltshire County Council, August 2007.

Devizes Retail Revival Strategy, Bournemouth University, June 2002.

Devizes Town Centre Area Action Plan, Statement of Community Engagement, Kennet District Council, March 2006.

District & Community Area Level Population Estimates and Projections 2001 to 2026, Wiltshire County Council, May 2007.

Draft Wiltshire Housing Marketing Review, Roger Tym & Partners, 2007

Economic Study of Kennet District Council, Akins, August 2006.

Housing Land Supply Statement: Technical Appendices, Kennet District Council, April 2007.

Kennet District Council Housing Needs and Condition Survey 2001, Fordham Research Ltd

Kennet Housing Needs Survey 2005, Fordham Research Ltd, June 2006.

Land Registry postcode data

Land Use Framework and Urban Design Codes for Devizes, Gillespie, 2005.

Rural Facilities Survey 2005, Wiltshire County Council.

South West Observatory Economic Projections, October 2007.

South West Observatory labour Market review, October 2007.

Swindon Housing Market Assessment, DTZ, August 2006.

15 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P P Town Centre Uses Survey, Kennet District Council, May 2006.

WCC Population Projection, draft RSS based, May 2007 2 Marlborough Community Area Overview:

A Community fit for our Children, Wiltshire Strategic Board,

Census 2001

District & Community Area Level Population Estimates and Projections 2001 to 2026, Wiltshire County Council, May 2007

Housing Land Supply Statement: Technical Appendices, Kennet District Council, April, 2007

Kennet District Council Housing Needs and Condition Survey 2001, Fordham Research Ltd.

Kennet Economy Study, Akins, August 2006

Kennet Housing Needs Survey 2005, Fordham Research Ltd, June 2006.

Kennet Housing Needs Survey 2005, Fordham Research Ltd, June 2006

Marlborough Community Area Plan 2004-2014

Rural Facilities Survey 2005, Wiltshire County Council.

Settlement Functionality Assessment for the RSS based 2001 Census.

South West Observatory Economic Projections, October 2007

South West Observatory Labour Market review, October 2007.

Swindon Housing Market Assessment, DTZ, August 2006

Town Centre Uses Survey, Kennet District Council, May 2006

16 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

Pewsey Community Area Overview: P P Annual Business Inquiry Workspace Analysis 2005 Suppressed Data: due to the restrictions imposed by the 1947 Statistic Trade Act 2 Housing Land Supply Statement: Technical Appendices, Kennet District Council, April, 2007

Pewsey Community Area Plan 2002-2012

Kennet Economy Study, Akins, August 2006

Kennet Housing Needs Survey 2000, Fordham Research Ltd, June 2001

Kennet Housing Needs Survey 2005, Fordham Research Ltd, June 2006

Land Registry postcode data

Mid year population estimates WCC 2006

South West Observatory Economic Projections, October 2007

Swindon Housing Market Assessment, DTZ, August 2006

WCC Community Area Level Population Projections, May 2007

17 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P P Tidworth Community Overview:

Annual Business Inquiry Workspace Analysis 2003, Settlement Functionally Assessment 2 for RSS.

Bournemouth University Retail Research Group, Retail Strategy for Tidworth Community Area, 2006.

Census 2001

Core Strategy Issues Raising Consultation – Statement of Community Engagement, Kennet District Council October 2007.

Housing land Supply Statement: Technical Appendices. Kennet District Council April 2007.

Kennet District Council Housing Needs and Condition Survey 2001, Fordham Research Ltd

Kennet Economy Study, Akins, August 2006

Kennet Housing Needs Survey 2005, Fordham Research Ltd, June 2006

Land Registry, Kennet District Council Housing Services

South West Observatory Economic Projections, October 2007

Swindon Housing Market Assessment, DTZ, August 2006

Tidworth Development Trust Economic Development Strategy

The Bourne Valley Linear Parking Scoping Report, April 2006.

18 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

Appendix 3 – Press Advert P P Advert sent to Gazette and Herald, Salisbury Journal and Andover Advertiser. 3

19 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P P Placed in Andover Advertiser prior to the Tidworth/Ludgershall workshops.

20 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement A

P Appendix 4 – Press Release & Gazette and Herald Front Page Headline P P P PRESS RELEASE 4 4

Place Making in Kennet

A major public consultation is about to start in Kennet. People who live, work, shop or access services in the district will be asked how they would like their local community to look in fifteen years time. The district will be facing major changes to the economy, the environment and the provision of housing. Living in a more sustainable manner will underline all decisions on how we might change our local areas. Issues such as climate change and the impact of technology will affect how we use our town centres, the way we work, and how we travel. But without doubt, the biggest challenge will be about providing houses that local people can afford and where we chose to build those new homes.

The consultation will be launched on 6th May and continue for six weeks. It follows an earlier consultation where people gave their views on the important issues to be faced by the communities of Kennet. The current exercise will ask people about how they see the future role of the various towns and villages in the area. In particular, where should development be located? Chairman of Kennet’s planning policies committee, Andrew Connolly said “it is vitally important that local residents and businesses get involved in this crucial consultation”. He continued “this is the opportunity to say how they want their communities to change and where new jobs and homes should be located”.

A leaflet, outlining the challenges to be faced in the district and a questionnaire for responses, is being circulated throughout the district. The Government’s draft regional plan states that Kennet should find space for about 1800 houses in addition to those already committed or built since 2006. The leaflet outlines options for development in the towns and questions how villages might also play a part in creating balanced and sustainable communities.

Public exhibitions and meetings will be held in Marlborough ( St Peters Church 13th & 14th May); Pewsey (Bouverie Hall, 19th & 22nd May); Devizes (Town Hall, 3rd & 5th June); Tidworth (Leisure Centre, 9th June); and Ludgershall (Memorial Hall, 12th June).

21 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P P GAZETTE AND HERALD FRONT PAGE HEADLINE

22 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement A

P Appendix 5 –Distribution of Pamphlet P P P

5 5

Distribution areas Kennet was advised would be covered by “The Star”

Additional Parishes contacted who took leaflets to distribute

Additional Parishes tried to contact

Delivered by hand in the Tidworth Community Area

Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement A

P Appendix 6 – List of Stakeholders Informed of Consultation by Category in the P P Statement of Community Involvement P

6 NB Some organisations were contacted more than once because of the different interests 6 they represent. for example, Wiltshire County Council (highways, education, strategic plans, community etc). Others were contacted more than once because several members have individually asked to be kept informed of the LDF process, for example, Devizes Development Partnership, several Parish Councils and RPS Planning. In the following lists the name of organisation is only included once to demonstrate the range of people contacted. 144 Tilshead Parish Council 130 Vale of White Horse District Council Adjoining Authority 150 Vernham Dean Parish Council 146 Appleshaw, Fyfield & Shipton 138 Wanborough Parish Council Bellinger Parish Councils 133 West Berkshire Council 145 Ashbury PC 131 West Wilts District Council 135 Bishopstone & Hinton Parva PC 1699 Wiltshire County Council 156 Broad Town PC 139 Wroughton Parish Council 161 Bulkington PC 157 Calne Without PC Business 160 Cherhill PC 136 Chiseldon PC 788 Brimble Lea & Partners 155 Clyffe Pypard PC 742 Business Link Swindon 151 Coombe PC 1683 Carter Jonas 162 Coulston PC 1456 Carter Jonas LLP 140 Figheldean PC 1106 Chamber Of Trade 132 Hampshire County Council 1751 Colliers CRE 158 Heddington PC 1499 Crown Estate (agent Carter Jonas) 163 Heytesbury PC 530 David Owen & Co 167 Hilmarton PC 683 Devizes Chamber of Commerce 153 Hungerford PC 1441 Devizes Development Partnership 152 Inkpen PC 757 Devizes Taxis and Private Hire 164 Keevil PC 1471 Digby Rowsell Associates 147 Kimpton PC 784 Dolman Building Surveyors 159 Lacock PC 1493 DTZ 154 Lambourn PC 1584 Edward Nash Partnership 137 Liddington PC 1470 Enviros Consulting Ltd 1606 Marlborough Town Council 633 Federation of Small Businesses 165 Melksham without PC 1165 Gaiger Bros 141 Milston PC 721 Great Western Commerce & 125 North Wiltshire District Council Enterprise 142 Orcheston PC 1481 Great Western Enterprise 126 Oxfordshire County Council 1472 GVA Grimley 148 Penton Grafton PC 570 Lidl U.K. GmbH 129 Salisbury District Council 798 Marlborough Area Development 166 Semington PC Trust 143 Shrewton PC 1476 Marlborough Chamber Of 127 Swindon Borough Council Commerce 149 Tangley PC 1664 Marlborough Chamber of 134 Test Valley Borough Council Commerce/ David Owen 1626 Tidworth Town Council Accountants

25 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P 764 Marlborough Radio Cars Trust P 594 Paul Sharpe Associates 76 Marlborough Community Area 1706 Peacock & Smith Strategic Partnership

1436 Pewsey Area Community Trust 702 Pewsey Area Community Trust 6 1072 Rapleys LLP 734 Pewsey Community Area 1723 Regen SW (renewable energy Partnership agency) 1701 Salisbury College ( Tidworth ) 747 Safeway 1660 Strong, Cllr 999 Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd C/o 987 Tidworth Community Area 1045 Somerfield Stores Partnership 1445 Stewart Ross Associates 1688 Tidworth Development Trust 629 SW CBI 1679 Way, Mr M 575 TH White Ltd 1666 WCC 700 Tidworth Chamber of Trade 1677 Wilcot & Huish Parish Council 985 Tidworth Community Area 1773 Wiltshire Churches Together partnership,Tidworth & 1460 Wiltshire Alternative Youth Sports District Chamber of Commerce 1659 Wiltshire Constabulary 643 Tidworth Community Area Planning 1650 Wiltshire Police Authority Partnership 1649 Wiltshire Primary Care Trust 750 Tidworth Employment 1658 Youth & Community Services - Opportunities (TEMPO) WCC 791 Tony Thorpe Associates 565 Wadworth & Co Countryside 781 Wansboroughs Solicitors 637 Action for the River Kennet 1598 Wessex Association of Chamber of 772 Agricultural Development & Commerce Advisory Service 504 Willis & Co 655 British Trust for Conservation 770 Wiltshire & Swindon Training 564 Country Land and Business Enterprise Council Association 1716 Wiltshire Financial Management Ltd 756 Farming & Wildlife Advisory Group (FWAG) Community partnership 752 Forestry Commission SW 1487 Alton Village Design Statement Conservancy Group 727 Great Western Community Forest 1647 Bagwell, Cllr S 679 Kennet & Avon Canal Trust 1648 Bouch, Cllr 984 Kennet CPRE 1680 Church Together 687 Le Marchant Conservation Group 807 Community First 664 Ludgershall Environment Group 740 Devizes Community Area 1444 National Farmers Union Partnership 666 National Farmers Union South West 1458 Devizes Light Operatic Society 1220 Natural England 1780 Devizes Partnership of Churches 654 North Wessex Downs AONB 1656 Easton Royal Primary School/Milton 675 Royal Society for the Protection of Lilbourne Parish Council Birds 1651 Fryer, Mrs L 793 Rural Needs Initiative 1653 Goldsmith, Cllr D 620 Tenant Farmers Association 1662 Holden, Miss M 1429 The Inland Waterways Association 1671 Humphrey, Mr D 726 The National Trust 1654 KASH 658 The Ramblers Association 803 Kennet LSP 1122 Trust for Devizes 1668 King, Cllr R 646 Wiltshire Federation of Young 1634 Learning & Skills Council Farmers 651 Marlborough Area Development 674 Wiltshire Ornithological Society

26 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

1082 Wiltshire Wildlife Trust 503 Land, Development & Planning P 695 Woodland Trust Consultants 2005 World Heritage Site Officer 707 Landmark Information Croup Ltd P

1503 Langdale Western (Agent: RPS) Developer etc 549 Levvel Consulting Ltd 6 1414 Aistone Properties Ltd 1035 Local Dialogue 611 Alder King LLP 536 Lovelace, Mark 1721 Alder King Planning Consultants 516 LPC (Trull) Ltd 532 Andrew Fleming Associates 1077 Malcolm Judd & Partners 1700 Army - Aspire Defence 537 Malcolm Ward associates 1687 Army - Aspire Defence Services Ltd 1788 May, Mr C 556 Army - Defence Estates 1768 McDonic, Mr 1029 Atis Real Weatherall 512 Michael Fowler Architects 514 Atwell Martin 1489 Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners 525 Ball Family Trust 1770 Pacey Land and Development 586 Barton Willmore Planning 1586 Paul Dickinson & Associates partnership 609 Pioneer Property Services Ltd 723 Bell Cornwall Partnership 718 Planning Issues 613 Berkeley Strategic Land 1771 Princeton Homes, Turner, Mr 588 Boyer Planning 1693 Project Allenby/ Connaught 540 Broadway Malyan Planning 1042 Rapleys LLP 800 Brook Chartered Surveyors 606 Ridgeway Developments 1068 cgMs Consulting 1038 Robertson, Mr & Mrs 1767 Charles Planning Associates Ltd, 1044 Roger Tym & Partners MrNeame 753 Royal Mail Property Holdings 780 Civic Planning & Design Group 1452 RPS Group 572 Cluttons LLP 1046 RPS Planning 612 Countryside Solutions 1026 RPS Planning & Environment 515 Crown Estate 507 RPS Planning, Transport & 543 CSJ Planning Consultants Ltd Environment 1696 Defence Estates - Project Allenby 1074 Savills 1039 DevPlan UK 733 Scott Brownrigg 566 DPDS Consulting Group 590 Shalbourne Property Management 1453 DPDS Consulting Group Ltd 501 Dreweatt Neate 693 Sisman Nichols 527 F. J. Snook & Sons Ltd 1424 Smiths Gore 1022 Focus Information Ltd 579 Society of Merchant Venturers 506 FPD Savills (Agent:Carter Jonas) 1754 Fusion Online Ltd 1057 Strategic Land Partnerships 1031 G L Hearn 589 Stride Treglown plc 607 Gillespies Ltd 505 Strutt & Parker 1443 GVA Grimley 1052 Terence O'Rourke Ltd 610 Hamiltons Chartered Surveyors 513 Tetlow King Planning 520 Hamptons International 769 Thames Water Utilities Ltd 1483 Hills Property Ltd (Agent: Barton 1593 The Pulse Land Company Willmore Planning partnership 1446 Ticknell & Sons (DPDS Consulting) 551 Home Builders Federation 1034 Toogood, Mr B 518 J S Bloor (Newbury) Ltd 614 Town Planning Consultancy 542 Kemp & Kemp Property Consultants 1769 Trident, Mr Davis 1461 Kitewood 1449 White Young Green Planning 605 Kris Mitra Associates Ltd 1432 White, Young and Green Town 1413 Lambert Smith Hampton Planning Consultants 1624 Land Use Consultants 508 Woolley & Wallis

27 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P 1025 WPB Development Planning 523 Devizes Almshouse Charity P 1482 Dijksman, Mr K 563 English Churches Housing Group Government 300 Ancram M.P., Mr Michael 1474 Giles ,Wheeler-Bennett 6 719 Army 574 Guinness Trust Housing Association 1434 Army - Aspire Defence Ltd 571 Hannick Homes & Developments 1438 Army - Defence Estates Ltd 1777 Army - HQ 4 Division 1762 J.A.S. Macdonald (representing Astor 1697 Army - HQ 43 ( Wx ) Brigade Group) 1570 Army - HQ TIDNBUL GSU 546 James Butcher Housing Association 1206 Army - Smith Gore 562 Kennet Action for Single Homeless 1495 DEFENCE ESTATE 552 Kennet Housing Society Ltd 1255 Divisional Police HQ 559 Kingfisher Housing Association 600 Fin Man HQ 5th Division 554 Knightstone Housing Association 746 Government Office for the South 1760 Lilac Investments Ltd West 604 Lovell 1236 Major R T Amery 1761 Maude, Mr M Government Office for the South 557 McCarthy & Stone Ltd East 1758 McQueen Developments Ltd 583 New Downland Housing Society Healthcare 511 Persimmon Homes 1490 Plank, Mrs D. R 402 Avon & Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership 582 Raglan Housing Association 1638 Cole, Mrs J 1764 Richard H Parry/ Harving LD 1081 Kennet & North Wilts PCT 1511 Ricketts, Mr M 724 Kennet Carers Association 783 Riverdale Homes Ltd 701 Marlborough Day Service 1060 Robert Hitchins Ltd 1033 NHS Wilts Shared Services 1500 RPS Consortium 569 Rural Housing Trust 400 Salisbury Health Care NHS Trust 581 Sanctuary Housing Association 1588 Savernake Hospital 1139 Sartin, Mrs J 401 Swindon & Marlborough NHS Trust 585 Shaftesbury Housing Association 1239 TATWBG/FDE (Wiltshire) 568 Sovereign Housing Association 775 West Lavington, Littleton Panell 1428 Tetlow King Planning Care 519 The Housing Corporation 762 Wiltshire Ambulance Service NHS 624 The National Housing Federation Trust 1426 Vail Williams 1217 Wiltshire Primary Care Trust 580 Western Challenge Housing Association Housing 1430 White, Young, Green 584 Wiltshire Rural Housing Association 522 Aldbourne Housing Group

558 Amber Foundation 560 Anchor Trust Individual 1755 Annington Homes 937 Altree, Mr & Mrs C 561 Ashley Homes 995 Amor, Mr B 804 Aster Group 1665 Anderson, I 592 Banner Homes Limited 1491 B & D Plank 1183 Bovis Homes 994 Baker, Robin J 1756 Bovis Homes (Wessex region) 1248 Barfoot, Mr G 1757 Breach Wood Ingram 1247 Barker - Wyatt, Brg D A 544 Crest Nicholson South West Ltd 971 Buckland, Mr & Mrs D 1498 Crown Estate (Agent: Entec) 1631 Buckler, Mr B 596 David Wilson Homes 1645 Buffery, Mrs M

28 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

1749 Butler, Mr D 1621 Padfield, Mr A P 1725 Buxton, Mr D 1450 Patching, Dr M 976 Chamberlain, E J R 1501 Peall Clegg, Mrs C P

1615 Colvin, Mrs E 978 Phillips, J F 882 Cooper, Mr GC 1652 Pierpoint, P 6 1610 Copp, J 988 Prowse, Mrs P 1772 Cowley, Mr & Mrs 1003 Rawlings, Col B A 1596 Davison, Mr T 1078 Rayner, Mrs 1753 Devine, R 1673 Reekie, V 980 Dutton, Joanne 961 Roche, Mrs N D 903 Dykes, Mr R L 899 Roche, W G 989 Eacopo, Mr 1080 Roseaman, Mr D 1597 Evans, Cllr Mrs 887 Scutt, AJ 997 Evans, Mr B 965 Shelton, Mr D 1486 Everett, Mr R 1678 Shepherd, P 1027 Flower, Mr & Mrs 1640 Sherlock, Mr. D 1425 Ford, Mr AJ 960 Sibbons, Mr E G 1722 Gent, Mrs W 1629 Silvester, Ms P 1625 Giles, Mr M 1595 Simon, Mr J 1233 Giles. Mrs J 1243 Simons, A 1702 GL Hearn 1798 Simons, Mrs H 1738 Goldsbrough, H 1766 Stibbard, Mr A 1737 Goldsbrough, R 898 Tatem, Mr M 941 Goodman, Mr & Mrs P 1454 Thomas, Mr R 1111 Gudgeon, Mrs J 900 Treherne, Mrs B 964 Hall, Mr & Mrs D 857 Watson, Mr D 1058 Hall, Mr D 650 Wessex Association of Chamber of 909 Hansford, D Commerce 1794 Hawes, Mrs A L 953 Woodard, Mr T & Ms M 1655 Hill-Tout, Lyn 1672 Honey, D Interest 1108 Howard, Ms R 671 ACERT 992 Hull, F R 728 Age Concern Wiltshire 1633 Jackson, Cllr Mrs C 653 Angling Association 1759 Jackson, Mrs C A 618 Avebury Society 921 Jenkins, Mr G 676 BASICS and 10.10 Club 1644 Jones, Ms R 1447 Begley, Mr T 1750 Kemp, Mr 737 Bodmans Coaches 862 Kent, Mr & Mrs Q 998 Broad Hinton Village Hall Cttee 1765 Llewelyn, Mrs L 706 Campaign for Dark Skies 1675 Loosmore, G 1075 Campaign For Real Ale 990 Lucas, E.D. 1147 Chirton Parish Council 1720 Maclean Ives, Mrs M 644 Collingbourne Bypass Action Group 1603 Marlborough Community Area 1196 Devizes & District Heritage Society Strategic Partnership 774 Devizes and District Link 866 May, Mr D A 641 Devizes and District Round Table 1032 Moore, S 1310 Devizes Development Partnership 1936 Mowatt, K 682 Devizes Towns Women's Guild 942 Mr W Dibben 626 Dorset & Wiltshire Rugby Football 1657 Napier, C Union 897 Newton, H C 1442 Drivers Jonas 1378 Nicoll, Mr W 760 East Kennett Community Transport 1622 Nightingale, Mrs M Group

29 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P 681 Elcot Lane Playing Field Action 768 Upavon, Rushall & Charlton Link Group 1001 White Horse Boats P 1059 Elysan Limited 656 Wilton Windmill Society

627 England & Wales Cricket Board 697 Wilts & Berks Canal Amenity Group 6 755 First 749 Wilts & Dorset Bus Company Ltd 751 First Badgerline 787 Wilts Archaeological & Natural 739 First Great Western History Society (represented by Dr K 776 Freight Transport Association Fielden) 680 Friends of the Ridgeway 672 Wilts Federation of Women's 1575 Gibbs, Mr B Institutes 1071 Goadsby & Harding Commercial Ltd 411 Wiltshire College 621 Guide Dogs for the Blind 1121 Wiltshire County Council - 1642 Holy Trinity Church, Tidworth Education 983 Kennet CPRE 616 Wiltshire Hockey Association 692 Kennet Passengers 1221 Wiltshire Police Authority 642 Kennet Valley Arts Trust, Hill Mrs R 1219 Wiltshire Wildlife Trust 1727 Kennet Valley Arts Trust, Ms Sexton 867 Kinwardstone Ltd Local authority 640 Lions Club of Devizes 1786 Devizes Job Centre 635 Lions Club of Marlborough and 1605 Hall, Brigadier, R, Wiltshire County District Councillor 1643 Ludgershall & Tidworth Parish 1781 Learning & Skills Council 617 Ludgershall Sports and Social Club 352 Rugg, Cllr Mrs P, WCC 628 Marlborough & District Angling 1785 Scott, Cllr Mrs J, WCC Assoc 311 Taylor, Cllr Mrs M, WCC 1690 MCTI Association 1787 Wiltshire Constabulary 1435 MOD 1455 Mono Consultants Local councillor 731 Parnham's of Ludgershall 1744 Adamson, Cllr T, KDC 725 Pewsey Vale Coaches 319 Beard, Cllr K, KDC 631 Pewsey Vale Transport Appraisal 334 Brewer, Cllr G, KDC Group 306 Brown, Cllr P A, KDC 662 Poulshot Village Trust 340 Connolly, Cllr A R, KDC 991 Poulshot Village Trust 351 Connolly, Cllr M, WCC 638 Rotary Club of Devizes 1618 Dagger, Cllr S, KDC 716 Save our Spitalcroft Community 341 D'Arcy-Irvine, Cllr Mrs J, KDC Group 1508 Dobson, Cllr S, KDC 639 Society for the Protection of Ancient 1745 Dow, Cllr Mrs P, KDC Buildings 310 Duck, Cllr T, KDC 720 Sport England 312 Evans, Cllr P, KDC 1691 St. Modwen Developments 1742 Evans, Cllr S, KDC 765 Stagecoach Hampshire Bus 332 Findlay, Cllr Mrs, KDC 323 Fogg, Cllr J N, KDC 729 Stagecoach Swindon & District 1746 Fogg, Cllr Mrs E, KDC 771 Thames Trains Ltd 1740 Gamble, Cllr R, KDC 1053 The British Wind Energy Association 305 Giles, Cllr Mrs J, KDC 625 The Football Association 308 Grundy, Cllr L, KDC 622 The National Trust 322 Hannaford-Dobson, Cllr Mrs M, 761 The Southern Traffic Group WCC 1056 The Theatres Trust 328 Hayhoe, Cllr Mrs A, KDC 645 The Wiltshire Gardens Trust 331 Hoddinott, Cllr C, KDC 1076 UKRHA (UK Rainwater Harvesting 1752 Howard, Cllr C, KDC Association) 301 Humphries, Cllr C, KDC 414 University of the Third Age 1488 Hunter, Cllr D, KDC

30 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

329 Kunkler, Cllr J, KDC 18 Chute Parish Council P 1747 Lake, Cllr A, KDC 20 Collingbourne Ducis Parish Council 1739 Mayes, Cllr Mrs L, KDC 21 Collingbourne Kingston Parish P

339 Miles, Cllr S J, KDC Council 315 Ody, Cllr J, KDC 799 Devizes Town Council 6 316 Parsons, Cllr R T, KDC 1440 East Kennett Parish Council 325 Pearcy-Caldwell, Cllr J, KDC 1088 Easterton Parish Council 1741 Seed, Cllr J, KDC 25 Easton Royal Parish Council 337 Veasey, Cllr P, KDC 26 Enford Parish Council 1743 Wheeler, Cllr S J K, KDC 1401 Erlestoke Parish Council 1020 Williams, Cllr C, KDC and SECAF 28 Etchilhampton Parish Council 1421 Winchcombe, Cllr Mr C, WCC 29 Everleigh Parish Council 314 Winchcombe, Cllr Mrs P, KDC 326 Wood, Cllr A S, KDC 30 Fittleton Parish Council 1748 Zweck, Cllr Mrs S, KDC 31 Froxfield Parish Council 32 Fyfield & West Overton Parish Council Media 80 Grafton Parish Council 1617 Andover Advertiser 1639 Great Bedwyn Parish Council 1611 BBC Radio Wiltshire 7 Great Cheverell Parish Council 1609 Butterworth, Mr A 35 Ham Parish Council 1646 Castledown Radio 37 Little Bedwyn Parish Council 1612 Hants & Wiltshire News Service 15 Little Cheverell Parish Council 795 Marlborough & District Talking 38 Ludgershall Parish Council Newspaper 39 Manningford Parish Council 1689 Marlborough Gazette & Herald 1710 Marden Parish Council 913 Parish Magazine 41 Market Lavington Parish Council 1608 Salisbury Newspapers 42 Marlborough Town Council 1614 Spire FM 27 Marston Parish Council 709 The Andover Advertiser 45 Milton Lilbourne Parish Council 696 The Gazette & Herald 78 Netheravon Parish Council 694 The Salisbury Journal 47 North Newnton Parish Council 1681 Wilts Gazette 49 Ogbourne St Andrew Parish Council

50 Ogbourne St George Parish Council

Parish council 51 Patney Parish Council 1.01 Albourne PC Planning Sub- 52 Pewsey Parish Council committee 53 Potterne Parish Council 1036 Aldbourne Parish Council 54 Poulshot Parish Council 2 All Cannings Parish Council 55 Preshute Parish Council 3 Alton Parish Council 56 Ramsbury Parish Council 4 Avebury Parish Council 57 Roundway Parish Council 5 Baydon Parish Council 58 Rowde Parish Council 6 Beechingstoke Parish Council 59 Rushall Parish Council 1703 Berwick Bassett & W'bourne 60 Savernake Parish Council Monkton PC 61 Seend Parish Council 8 Bishops Cannings Parish Council 62 Shalbourne Parish Council 83 Broad Hinton & Winterbourne 63 Stanton St Bernard Parish Council Bassett Parish Council 64 Stert Parish Council 10 Bromham Parish Council 65 Tidcombe & Fosbury Parish Council 11 Burbage Parish Council 48 Tidworth Town Council 79 Buttermere Parish Council 66 Upavon Parish Council 13 Charlton & Wilsford Parish Council 82 Urchfont Parish Council 1719 Chirton Parish Council 68 West Lavington Parish Council 19 Chute Forest Parish Council 69 Wilcot & Huish Parish Council

31 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P 73 Woodborough Parish Council 1579 Government Office for the South P 1717 Wootton Rivers Parish Council West 75 Worton Parish Council 103 Highways Agency

120 Joint Strategic Planning Unit 6 Religious 107 Mobile Operators Association 553 Diocese of Salisbury 1704 Natural England 668 Jehovah's Witnesses 1736 Network Rail 708 Wiltshire Churches Together 102 Network Rail (Western Region) 109 RCHME - 'Royal Commission on the Residents association Historical Monuments of England'. 112 South West Regional Assembly 714 Drews Park Village Association 1599 South West Regional Development 895 Great Bedwyn VDS Team Agency 678 Manton Residents Association 115 Southern Electric 1043 Quakers Walk Protection Group 124 Transco 785 Roundway Mill Boundary Residents 106 Wessex Water Association 1478 Wiltshire Strategic Board 660 Savernake & Mildenhall Action

Cmm 710 Urchfont Parish Plan Group Voluntary 1636 Community First Service provider 777 Community First & Wiltshire Association of Local Councils 767 Atis Real Weatherall (obo Post 1259 Devizes Townswomen Guild Office Property Holdings) 1763 Devizes Womens Institute 1735 B Hedley Builders 698 Gay Mens's Health 766 British Waterways 634 Kennet ACCESS Committee 685 Civil Aviation Authority 744 Kennet Citizens Advice Bureau Ltd 773 Devizes & District Phab Community Transport 735 Voluntary Action Kennet 759 Devizes Fire Station 1114 Watchman, Mr D 754 Health & Safety Executive 699 Wiltshire Racial Equality Council 704 National Wind Power 1459 Youth Development Service 1431 Office Of Rail Regulation 1627 Porter, Sergeant, N Youth 779 Seend Community Bus 1518 All Cannings C Of E Primary School 104 Southern Water/ Atkins plc 1560 All Saints C Of E Primary School 738 Transco 796 ASK - Advice & Services for Kids & 665 Wilts/Swindon Biological Records Young People Centre 1540 Avebury C Of E Primary School 1698 Wiltshire Ambulance Service 1541 Baydon St Nicholas C Of E 1086 Wiltshire College 1519 Bishops Cannings C Of E Aided 1578 Wiltshire Constabulary School 1576 Wiltshire Fire Authority 1561 Broad Hinton Primary School 763 Wiltshire Fire Brigade 1536 Castle Primary School 1582 Wiltshire Police Authority 1542 Chilton Foliat C Of E Primary School 1520 Chirton C Of E Primary School Statutory 1535 Collingbourne C Of E Primary School 101 Avon, Gloucester & Wiltshire 1533 Dauntsey Primary School Strategic Health Authority 413 Dauntsey's School 116 BRB (Residuary) Ltd 1562 Devizes Secondary School 105 Environment Agency 1465 Devizes Youth Centre 99Government Office for the South East 1568 Downlands School 1553 Easton Royal Community Primary

32 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

School 1559 Woodborough C Of E Aided P 1554 Grafton C Of E Primary School Primary School 1543 Great Bedwyn C Of E Primary 1030 Woodborough Primary School P

School 1534 Worton & Marston Primary School 1545 Kennet Valley C Of E Primary 810 Young People's Services 6 School ( Lower ) 748 Youth Action (Wilts) 1544 Kennet Valley C Of E Primary 1775 Youth and Community Services School ( Upper ) WCC 1563 Lavington School 1539 Zouch Primary School 415 Learning & Skills Council 1569 Marlborough College 1524 Nursteed Community Primary School 1555 Oare C Of E Primary School

1548 Ogbourne St George & Ogbourne St Andrew C Of E Controlled Primary School 1556 Pewsey Primary School 1565 Pewsey Vale School 1527 Potterne C Of E Primary School 1549 Preshute C Of E Primary 1550 Ramsbury Primary School 1528 Rowde Church Of England Voluntary Aided 1567 Rowdeford School 1557 Rushall C Of E Primary School 1529 Seend C Of E Primary School 1552 Shalbourne C Of E Primary School 1522 Southbroom C Of E Junior School 1521 Southbroom Infants School 1531 St Barnabos C Of E Primary School 410 St John's School & Community College 1307 St. Joseph's Catholic School 1551 St Katherines C Of E Primary School 1546 St Mary's Infant School 1517 St Nicholas C Of E Primary 1525 St Peter's C Of E Primary School 1547 St Peter's Junior School 1526 St. Joseph's Catholic Primary School 1530 The Holy Trinity C Of E Primary School 1538 Tidworth Clarendon Junior School 1692 Tidworth Youth Development Centre 1558 Upavon Primary School 1532 Urchfont C Of E Primary School 1523 Wandsdyke Community School 1312 Wansdyke School 1079 WCC Youth and Community Services 1469 Wiltshire College

Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement A

P Appendix 7 – Information sent to Parishes P P P Each of the Parish Councils were contacted. Included in their letter was a pamphlet and two posters. 7 7 Letter sent to Parish Council’s

Director: B. FLEET, BA (Hons), DMS, MRTPI COMMUNITY SERVICES GROUP Browfort, Bath Road, Devizes, Wilts SN10 2AT PARISH LETTER Tel: 01380 724911 Ext. DX 42909 Fax: 01380 729146 www.kennet.g Please ask for Forward Planning &

Your reference

Our reference

Kennet: Making Places for the Future: Spatial Options for Future Development

Kennet has to face a number of challenges over the next few years including the economy, new homes and climate change. These challenges are being addressed by the Council’s local development framework (LDF). The LDF’s principal document is the core strategy. It will set out a vision for the District and contain the key elements of a planning framework for the future. Now is your opportunity to influence how we deal with these issues and decide where new development should be located.

Please find enclosed a copy of the consultation pamphlet ‘Spatial Options for Future Development’ which includes a questionnaire. We are encouraging as many individuals and organisations as possible to respond. The consultation material is also available to view at local libraries, the Council’s offices or on Kennet’s web site (www.kennet.gov.co.uk), where an on-line version of the questionnaire can be filled in. Comments should be returned by Monday 16th June 2008.

A series of meetings are being held throughout the district specifically for organisations and businesses who already have a vested interest in or expertise related to the future of Kennet. We would welcome the attendance of two representatives from your parish council to one of the following meetings, whichever is most convenient for you. (Please note that these events are in addition to those included in the pamphlet.)

St Peter’s Church, Marlborough - Tues 13th May 7:00 – 8:30pm Bouverie Hall, Pewsey - Monday 19th May 7:00 – 8:30pm Town Hall, Devizes - Tuesday 3rd June 7:00 – 8:30pm Tidworth Leisure Centre - Monday 9th June 7:00 – 8:30pm

There are also meetings and exhibitions being held throughout the district open to everyone. The dates, times and venues of the events are highlighted in the pamphlet and on the enclosed posters. To aid in the publicity of these events we would be grateful if you could display a poster on your local parish notice board(s).

35 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P Please could you let Fiona Gregory know if you are planning to attend one of the P meetings on 01380 734872 or via email [email protected] to help us plan the events effectively. Fiona will also be able to help you if you would like more copies of the pamphlet or need more than 2 copies of the poster. 7 This is the second stage in the preparation of the core strategy and has been informed by views expressed last year during the issues raising stage. Views expressed during this consultation will be considered by the Council’s Planning Policies Executive Committee later this year. Your participation will inform the next stage of the process to produce a preferred option for the core strategy. Once adopted the core strategy will replace the current local plan.

If you have any queries with regards to the options consultation please do not hesitate to contact the Forward Planning and Transportation team on 01380 734 872.

Yours sincerely

Ed White, Head of Forward Planning & Transportation.

Amended versions of this letter were sent to everybody listed in Appendix 6

36 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement A

P Appendix 8 – Members Bulletin P P P A letter was sent along side the member’s bulletin for the Councillors information prior to the start of the consultation. 8 8

Director: B. FLEET, BA (Hons), DMS, MRTPI COMMUNITY SERVICES GROUP Browfort, Bath Road, Devizes, Wilts SN10 2AT Tel: 01380 724911 Fax: 01380 DX 42909 www.kennet.gov.

All Members of the Council Please ask for Ed White Tel 01380 e mail Your reference Our reference Date

Dear Councillor,

Spatial Options Consultation

You will recall that the Planning Policies Executive Committee considered the development of options for the location of development to be included in the core strategy (report number: PSM/04/08) on 14th February 2008.

Arrangements for the consultation exercise have now been made and the consultation period will run from 6th May – 16th June 2008. A folded leaflet summarising the profiles and issues to be faced in each community areas and the options for the spatial distribution of development will be distributed to households in the district. The leaflet will include a questionnaire and envelope for return. These will be distributed with the Free Newspaper in the Devizes Gazette and Herald area and arrangements have been made for delivery in the Tidworth Community Area and those small pockets not covered by the above arrangements. Information will be available on the web site and facilities for making electronic comments provided. Information will also be made available at Browfort, public libraries and leisure centres. Provision is also being made for interactive exhibitions in each community area, a public meeting in each community area, and a meeting for key stakeholders in each community area.

Please find the enclosed copy of the consultation leaflet for your information and to enable you to respond to any questions you might face once the consultation is launched on 6th May. Members are asked to treat the copy of the consultation leaflet as confidential until the official launch.

Yours sincerely,

Edgar White, MA, Dip TP (Dist), MRTPI Head of Forward Planning & Transportation.

Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement A

P Appendix 9 – Staff Bulletin P P P

9 9

39 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P P

40 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

Appendix 10 – Poster and Leaflets P P POSTER 10

41 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P P LEAFLET

42 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

P P

Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

Appendix 11 – Photographs of Displays and Workshops P P Workshops 11

Town Hall, Devizes

Corn Exchange, Devizes

45 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement P P

Bouverie Hall, Pewsey

St Peters Church, Marlborough

46 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

P P

Tidworth Leisure Centre

Marlborough Leisure Centre

Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

Appendix 12 - Reduced version of Exhibition Panels P P The text of these is based on content from the pamphlet. Please refer to these for content of wording (Appendix 1) 12

Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A P P

51 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement P P

52 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A P P

53 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement P P

54 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A P P

55 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement P P

56 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A P P

57 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement P P

58 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A P P

59 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement P P

60 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A P P

61 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement P P

62 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A P P

63 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement P P

64 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A P P

65 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P P

66 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

Appendix 13 – List of Information Points P P Information points where leaflet was available are:

Devizes, Marlborough, Tidworth Leisure Centres 13 Devizes Visitor Centre E-info at Tidworth KDC Reception Pewsey Information Point Homes@Kennet District Council Kennet House Sarsen Housing Association

Libraries where pamphlets were available:

Aldbourne Devizes Ludgershall Market Lavington Marlborough Netheravon Pewsey Ramsbury Tidworth

Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

Appendix 14 – Report of Devizes Community Area Exhibition and Workshops P P

CORE STRATEGY OPTIONS CONSULTATION

Report of Devizes Community Area Exhibition and Workshops

Devizes, Cheese Hall, Town Hall

3rd and 5th June 2008 Daytime and Evening Events

In each community area 2 meetings were arranged:

Meeting 1: Stakeholder Consultation All parish councils in the community area and members of the community area partnerships for that local area were invited to send representatives.

Meeting 2: Members of the Public This meeting was open to anyone who had an issue about or interest in the future of their area.

Although there was a standard Agenda for each meeting (see Appendix 18) facilitators were advised to adapt the format of the evening to reflect the number of people who attended and the range of issues they wished to discuss.

Each meeting was preceded by an exhibition open to everyone at the same venue

This is a verbatim report of the meeting and comments posted on the exhibition. There is no attempt to analyse comments made. Throughout the report notes recorded during the meeting or comments posted on the exhibition boards are presented in italics. Additional comments are presented in normal type

69 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P Record of comments Submitted during the Exhibitions P The Exhibitions took place in the Cheese Hall in Devizes Town Hall on Tuesday 3rd June 14 and Thursday 5th June 2008. It was open between 12pm and 5pm each day and a planning officer from Kennet District Council was in attendance throughout to answer questions about the display. On Tuesday 20 people visited the exhibition and on Thursday 29 people visited the exhibition.

The following people recorded their attendance:

Tony Bolland Architect Laura Mayes Kennet District Council Bill Dowling Picton Barracks Bulford Ros Webb Resident Peter and Antonia Tolhurst Resident

People were invited to respond to questions on the exhibition boards and provided with information on how to complete the questions (See Appendix 18). Set out below are the comments recorded.

Q1 Do you agree with the general conclusions about the strengths, weaknesses and threats and opportunities (SWOT) in Devizes Community Area?

 1 person agreed with the conclusion of the SWOT  0 People disagreed with the conclusion of the SWOT

70 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

Q2 Is there anything you would add to or change in the SWOT? P P  Devizes doesn’t need big shops – these can be found in Chippenham and Trowbridge – Devizes needs to nurture the existing small independent shops to 14 keep its character as a small market town.  Traffic congestion, which is becoming worse all the time, will drive away shoppers.  Devizes is gridlock several times a day where’s the traffic coming from/going to?  Would a 1 way system help?  Assize Courts needs so much money spent on it. Where is the finance coming from?  Devizes is a small market town. Without being a NIMBY let’s keep it that way.  What corrective measures can be applied to the road network, a relief road has been ruled out?  To encourage small businesses, lower the rent/rates! Make it work for them not against.  Services especially police and medical are declining as numbers expand. This is madness!  Do we need more shops on central car park? There are lots of empty shops in the town.  Very important to retain the environment around Devizes. Not to develop up to the Downs.  Agree – too much traffic is Devizes’ main problem.  Cycling should be encouraged also ‘walking buses’ for school children.  Housing should not intensify traffic - but how?  Traffic is Devizes largest Threat a ring road should be a Priority.  A ring road would cost billions – to expensive and eat into our area of outstanding beauty.  A ring road would take trade away from town shops.  Just don’t build more houses.  There is access to retail outlets reasonably near Devizes, we do not need them here.

71 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P P  Traffic congestion is a problem as is lack of medical provisions. 14  Junction improvements can only deliver marginal improvements. Insufficient to cope with traffic from existing developments.  Initiatives required to prevent travel to work to Swindon.  We don’t need ‘development’ to include Macdonalds, Starbucks, Primarks, etc,etc,  Devizes is a delightful town as it is!  When is our new hospital going to be built that you promised? (2years ago.)  The Council already own the land by Green Lane Hospital.  Lay on more buses!  There is no other land available.  Congestion on London Road is a real issue.  Please use old industrial areas for housing before any Greenfield sites.  Hopton Estate should be expanded.  Brownfield sites for development in Devizes not Greenfield!  Increase new housing only commensurate with future prospects for employment in around Devizes area

Q3 Strategic Options Proposals put to the Secretary of State say that 6,000 new homes should be built in Kennet between 2006 and 2026. Taking account of houses already in the pipeline we have to find land for a further 1,800 homes in the Core Strategy (during the period up to 2021).

At the exhibition people were given 6 yellow dots and asked to place the yellow dots on a map at the settlements they felt could accommodate growth. Each dot represented 300 houses.

Devizes 11% of dots placed Marlborough 41% of dots placed Tidworth/Ludgershall 48% of dots placed

Additional comments recorded

 Devizes has no need or facilities to have a major share of further housing, this should go to other towns in this district. Devizes has lost several services – Hospital, Police Station, more service centres, magistrates court, maternity centre. All recently gone and we are threatened with more housing.

72 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

 Why should Devizes suffer? P  What ever is said (or written in local papers!) P

 There is scope for further development in/areas Devizes. But there is no police 14 Station and soon no Hospital!!  I consider that we’ve already had too much housing inconveniencing us with traffic congestion etc. Also we have no hospital. Devizes was a much nicer place to live 30 years ago.  The whole system needs re-vamping, where government dictates how many houses. Must be built in Wiltshire- this is wrong. Lets have more bottom up than top down decisions.  Make sure that there is development land available around Tidworth and Ludgershall both with a good road and rail link.

Q4 Local Options People were asked to indicate which of the local options for development they would prefer in the Core Strategy

Small scale local development concentrated at Pewsey 0 Small scale local development directed at Pewsey/Market Lavington 0 Small scale local development directed at Pewsey/Market Lavington and selected larger villages 3

Q5 Local Options Outside of the main towns, in smaller towns and villages, small scale development to meet local needs is appropriate to reinforce the role of those settlements. Using blue dots people were asked to identify which villages they thought would benefit from small scale development.

Ramsbury 1 Great Bedwyn 1 Collingbourne Ducis 1 Burbage 3 Pewsey 7 Upavon 1 Urchfont 3 Market Lavington 5 West Lavington 2

73 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P Additional comments recorded P  Need to also work with other Wiltshire areas 14  Seend is in need of housing, good employment: 3 miles to Devizes good facilities. - G.P Services, Bus Route!!!  West Lavington, Little Panell has No Post Office.  Surgery is to reduce services.  Good to be able to discuss present aim with Carolyn Gibson  Rather sad to be told at 12:30 I was the first member of public to visit.

Report of Evening Meetings

1. Arrival

On arrival people were asked to register their attendance and indicate if they would like to be kept informed of future planning consultations. Participants were then invited to look at a prepared exhibition and complete questions included on exhibition boards.

2. Meeting 1: Devizes Stakeholder Consultation 3rd June 2008 Cheese Hall, Town Hall, Devizes

The following people attended:

Richard Gamble Devizes Development Partnership Lionel Grundy Kennet District Council Peter Lay Devizes Development Partnership Peter Newell Urchfont Parish Council Nicky Mitchell Urchfont Parish Council Jenny Combe Bishop Cannings Eric Clark Bishop Cannings Jim Batt Urchfont PC DCAAP Jeff Ody Kennet District Council David Dawson Devizes Pat Rugg Ramsbury PC & Wiltshire Councillor

Facilitators:

Ed White Head of Forward Planning & Transportation, KDC Carolyn Gibson Principal Planning Officer, KDC Chris Minors Planning Officer, KDC

Expert advisers:

Martin Aldam Wiltshire County Council Highways Colette Mallon Kennet Economic Partnership Manager

74 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A a. Introduction P P Ed White welcomed everyone to the meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the key planning issues facing Devizes Community Area and the future development options for Devizes and its surrounding villages. It was emphasised that 14 at this stage the purpose of the meeting was not to discuss specific sites but to consider the most appropriate general strategy for the area.

Mr White also explained how the work that is being undertaken by Kennet District Council would be fed into the new unitary authority to allay fears that the consultation was a ‘waste of time’. Essentially each authority in Wiltshire is aiming to reach the same stage in the preparation of their Core Strategy ie the stage at which a preferred development strategy for their district can be prepared based on local consultation. A combined preferred development strategy can then be prepared for the whole of Wiltshire using existing information. b. Discussion Session One: Key Planning Issues

Participants sat at two table groups. Each table had information about the planning issues officers had identified as general to Kennet district as a whole (see Appendix 18) and specific to Devizes Community Area (see Appendix 18) on the consultation material. They were asked to consider:

Which do you consider to be the 3 most important and why?

Notes of the discussion about these questions were recorded on flip chart sheets. These notes are reproduced below.

Table 1

 Not enough focus on rural community  Roundway P.C. reluctantly agrees to small number of development – only housing has been infill.  Great Cheverill (19 Houses) Happy about development community facilities provided.  Easterton (Jam factory site) enthusiastic  Infrastructure is v. limited. (Pewsey) (M.L) not suitable for development without. Significant infrastructure improvements.  General public transport infrastructure improvements  General public transport infrastructure insufficient – lorry routes – Bath road, None to S.E.N- Concentrate investment avoid town centres.  Railway. (2 Miles) – Poor transport for public. Transport not attended to.

75 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P  M Scale of Propose development does not require. P  HGV – Cc, consultation on road networks which should be used.

14  RSS –does not encompass  Some village development is desirable  Policies to accommodate – Planning gain positive planning  Outcome? (a) Views (b) feedback letter on behalf of org’s.  Current commitment – 400

Table 2

 Level of growth? Low/Medium/High  More people/housing loss of services despite growth.  People having to travel to services.  Growth within Devizes – however limited retail offer.  Market Town good – however does the retail offer need  Will this lead to expand to the out skirts?  Will this lead to a loss of small independent offer.  Retail offer within villages very limited  Development within villages-size and type of homes potentially lead.  How to retain small village shops? To limited retail offer.  Different types of retail aimed to at settlement size.  Need for a strategy a vision for villages.  Devizes should not turn into a clone town.  Independent small shops for Devizes.  Gaps within retail offer – does it actually need.  Small shops have limited to expand? Turn-over can they service? – rent costs. Can planning influence this?  How do we encourage more people to shop within Devizes?  Property prices – can we influence rent, market forces.-break point between profit and rent.  Hopton industrial estate very good. – FULL  Loss of employment land to housing.  How can the planning system safe guard employment sites.  Redevelopment brief for vacant employment sites.

76 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

 Relationship between villages and urban centres. P  Each village needs a specific plan and vision P

 Scale of growth within villages sustainability. 14  Employment, Shops, Post Offices, -specific services needed.  Movement of large services to urban centres.  Sphere of influence to urban centre-important for sustainability.  A number of people work from home. – Diversification of villages and services.  People with transport tend to travel a long way for services.  How large will Devizes need to be to capture services?  Leisure centre important within Devizes.  Flexible premises and range of building need to insure that expansion is accommodated. c. Discussion Session Two: Consequences of Development

Participants were asked to consider what the consequences of ‘no growth’ or ‘strategic growth’ would have on Devizes. Information about the consequences of development planning officers had identified on the consultation material was available. (See Appendix 18)

Participants were asked to consider:

Do you agree with these potential consequences of a strategy of no future growth/strategic growth in Devizes?

The following comments were recorded:

Table 1

Further Allocation –  What is the effect? Economic development growth!  Uncertainties – Oil/Gas – Home working  Base on what is happening today?  Background growth – predicted growth!  If consensus is not to increase housing  What happens to economic growth?  RSS

77 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P  Good balance of live/work. P  Younger generation need to travel out.

14  Broadband – rural facility too slow!  Public transport – poor service  Options 1A/1B/1C Strategic Housing allocation for RSS  33/35% village dwellers retired.  Potterne (A Road) not suitable for lorries HGV’s  Should not attract through traffic box strategy not being pursued A350.  Tidworth/Marlborough  Devizes Main problem – 8-10 am stats unrealistic  A lot of the villages mentioned had good social facilities.  Need to agree locally what the issues are:  Ill feeling being created because nothing is being done about traffic concession- not objecting to actual housing.  Community Benefits night negotiate some of that negativity.  How many new road schemes are planned for county which Devizes may compete against?  Traffic model – success Devizes could cater for additional 800 houses some mitigation  Some consensus that other Wiltshire Towns have Greater problems i.e. B.O.A.  Wiltshire County Council has wish list 2016  Brewery Corner/ Crammer  Modelling suggests that at peak times these junctions to not perform to Highway regulations.  Concern that Devizes will not attract commerce (Not just about highway engineers.) Different method required.  Modelling shows this is not an issue; however consensus is that it simply isn’t working.  Don’t agree with modelling stats.  Who is arguing the case for Kennet at regional level?  Traffic composition – by pass makes little difference.  SWRDA Development strategies.  Park and ride?  Market towns orbital’s – not likely during plan period.

78 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

Table 2 P P Discussion focussed on traffic impact of development

Scale of growth – transport links need to be appropriate to the size of growth. 14  Can traffic improvements i.e. traffic lights help with traffic congestion.  Planning Applications seem to not take on board traffic impact.  School runs generate a lot of traffic.  Difficulties improving from one side of Devizes to the other.  Signal systems have moved on and improvements.  2016 potential traffic problem can be amended through road network improvements.  Need to work towards more sustainable communities and development.  Delivery of homes/  Junction nr Texaco Garage London Road already congested/ what will happen if the junction receives more traffic.  Planning and transport should work together.  What is a reasonable queuing time? Bench Marks.  People’s perception of traffic problem.  No growth – where will homes go?  Development will need to be diverted to other area if not Devizes.  Define improvement to transport network.  Perception that Devizes has a traffic problem

79 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P 3. Meeting 2: P Devizes Public Meeting 5th June 2008 MOVED TO Ceres Hall, Corn Exchange, Devizes 14

Over 70 people attended the meeting. The following people asked to be kept informed of future planning consultations.

Altree, Mr & Mrs C Barber, J Berry, R Boother, R Brown, K Brown, Mr K D Chapman, A Clarke, Mr A Collison, F. J Cuckow, V Dixon, L Duck, Cllr T, KDC East, Mr E East, Mr T Friend, J Hatala, T Kennet & Avon Canal Trust Kent, Mr & Mrs Q Kingsand, J Legge, Mr J.K Mcsweeney, D Morgan, P Morris, A & P Netheravon Parish Council Norton, P & J Oakford, I & E Ormerod, Mrs V Page, J Pedder, P Potter, P. Purcell, A Roberts, Mr J R Rose, Mrs J Savory, D & R Sedgwick, Mr T Sheppard, T

80 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

Smith, E Stephenson, B P Underwood, E & B Walker, A P Webb, R Winchcombe, Cllr Mrs P, KDC

Facilitators: 14

Ed White Head of Forward Planning & Transportation, KDC Carolyn Gibson Principal Planning Officer, KDC Mr Helps Divisional Manager, Mouchel Group Colette Mallon Kennet Economic Partnership Manager Val Powley Community Partnership Liaison Officer, KDC

Because of the number of people who attended the meeting the venue was moved to the Ceres Hall, Corn Exchange, Devizes and the original Agenda for the meeting was not used. Instead topics for discussion were invited from the audience. c. Introduction

Ed White welcomed everyone to the meeting. He explained that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the key planning issues facing Devizes Community Area and the future development options for Devizes and its surrounding villages. It was emphasised that at this stage the purpose of the meeting was not to discuss specific sites but to consider the most appropriate general strategy for the area.

It was clear from comments from the audience that there were certain issues they wanted to discuss. These were recorded as:

 Quakers Walk - Application - ‘White’ Land  Increase Amenities/ Holistic View  No Growth in Devizes  Pamphlet Design/Distribution - Post out instead, - The Star is often binned; - Council Tax Bills could be used.  Infrastructure/traffic/roads

The rest of the meeting considered these topics. Officers at the meeting tried to respond to as many questions as possible using the data available at the meeting.

81 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P Quakers Walk: P  Lighting an walk

14  Protection of walk (35m)  Gates at beginning of walk  Attitude of Wimpey  Frustrated – foregone conclusion  Sewers – why down Quakers Walk?  Comment s– pass to officers dealing with applications and members.

Future Growth for Devizes?  What is in pipeline? - Planning Permissions not yet built - Allocations not yet permitted in local plan  Where are the commitments? In 2007…. - 730 houses in Devizes - 170 houses Marlborough - 140 houses in Pewsey - 240 houses in Tidworth WINDFALLS – How many of these are windfalls? They should be included in the traffic model.  No more houses in Devizes. A vote was taken and about 80% of the audience supported this option.  2nd growth option is to spread growth to other communities  Infrastructure cannot cope with more housing.  Housing should go where infrastructure exists.  Economic plan needed – jobs not highly paid.  Misfit between type of houses in Devizes and jobs available.  Affordable housing and social housing not the same - Affordable housing = partnership with 50/50 ownership - Social housing = available to people on housing list  Don’t ignore changes in other services – health/police/post offices – when looking at housing all agencies should be part of the process.  Current housing too many homes being built in Devizes – house price issue?

82 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

 The Wharf – concern about possible loss of parking, shoppers will go elsewhere P already started because of traffic problems. P

 Loss of theatre not an option. 14

Infrastructure/Traffic/Roads  Traffic when will we reach ‘gridlock?’  Concerned about traffic using back lanes.  Not convinced junction improvements will make a difference.  Just not enough capacity on roads  Condition of roads  Should be looking at much longer term solutions. Bypass?  Public transport in villages not good. More houses in rural areas would dissipate impact of traffic.  Public transport from Devizes very poor.  Congestion affects businesses because they don’t choose to locate here.

Other comments  Greenspace very important - Being lost and not being replaced.  Devizes needs more cultural heritage, needs protecting  Villages – breach existing boundaries?  Location of Devizes – remote – No health services  Renewables and energy need to act now need to be more visionary  Tidworth/Ludgershall – A303/land available/ Employment in Andover and Salisbury/ Rail potential/young population  Record meetings in future.

4. What Happens Next?

For Information (not reported to the meeting at Ceres Hall but this information was related to those who attended the meeting at the Cheese Hall).

At the end of the consultation period on Monday 16th June all comments received will be collated and a report on the main findings will be presented to a meeting of Kennet’s Planning Policies Executive Committee in September 2008. Once Members of the Committee have given officers direction on a preferred development strategy for the district there will be a discussion of which sites are available for development to deliver the preferred strategy option.

83 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P Participants who registered their attendance at the meetings will be sent a draft copy P of a report of the meeting to verify the report as an accurate record of the meeting before Members consider the report in September.

14 5. Addendum

A draft version of this report was circulated to everyone who attended the evening workshops and also provided contact details because they wanted to be kept informed of the process. Participants were asked to comment on the accuracy of the report. Some spelling and minor amendments were identified which have been corrected in the document.

84 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

Appendix 15 – Report of Marlborough Community Area Exhibition and P Workshops P

CORE STRATEGY OPTIONS CONSULTATION

Report of Marlborough Community Area Exhibition and Workshops

St Peter’s Church, High Street.

13th and 14th May 2008 Daytime and Evening Events.

In each community area 2 meetings were arranged:

Meeting 1: Stakeholder Consultation All parish councils in the community area and members of the community area partnerships for that local area were invited to send representatives.

Meeting 2: Members of the Public This meeting was open to anyone who had an issue about or interest in the future of their area.

Each meeting was preceded by an exhibition open to everyone at the same venue

85 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P Record of comments Submitted during the Exhibitions P The Exhibitions took place in St Peter’s Church on Tuesday 13th and Wednesday 14th May 15 2008. It was open between 12pm and 5pm each day and a planning officer from Kennet District Council was in attendance throughout to answer questions about the display. On Tuesday 13 people visited the exhibition and on Wednesday 26 people visited the exhibition.

People were invited to respond to questions on the exhibition boards and provided with information on how to complete the questions (See Appendix 18). Set out below are the comments recorded.

86 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

Q1 Do you agree with the general conclusions about the strengths, weaknesses and P threats and opportunities (SWOT) in Marlborough Community Area? P

 6 people agreed with the conclusions of the SWOT 15  0 people disagreed with the conclusions of the SWOT

Q2 Is there anything you would add to or change in the SWOT?

 Town is visually contained and has limited visual impact on wider AONB landscape.  New development should be sited not to encroach on the wider landscape areas – the town should not infringe on views within AONB – Especially lighting.  Alternative new supermarket to existing one in Marlborough.  Free Parking  Ensure that green/open spaces within or adjacent to the town are kept for all to use- not parcelled off to specific groups.  Increase protection of existing allotments and ensure that more are provided in new developments.  Small ‘Pockets’ such as those at St John’s Close are well used/ much appreciates.  More Houses need more services (inc parking) in the town 1800 houses means 1800 more cars and there 1800 more parking places planned?  Some new development should be permitted in other small community areas within 3 or 4 miles of Marlborough 5 to 10 miles mixed housing.

At the exhibition people were given 6 yellow dots and asked to place the yellow dots on a map at the settlements they felt could accommodate growth. Each dot represented 300 houses.

Devizes 46% of dots placed Marlborough 21% of dots placed Tidworth/Ludgershall 33% of dots placed

87 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P Additional comments recorded P  Careful Consideration of visual impact of all new development on wide landscape 15 must be carefully considered.

Q4 Local Options People were asked to indicate which of the local options for development they would prefer in the Core Strategy

Small scale local development concentrated at Pewsey 0 Small scale local development directed at Pewsey and Market Lavington 0 Small scale local development directed at Pewsey, Market Lavington & larger villages 6

Burbage 4 Collingbourne Ducis 3 Great Bedwyn 4 Market Lavington 2 Netheravon 2 Pewsey 7 Ramsbury 6 Upavon 3 West Lavington 2

Additional comments recorded

 Perhaps look at villages that have extra capacity in schools, so Great Bedwyn School is full but other villages are not.

88 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A P Report of Evening Meetings P 1. Arrival 15 On arrival people were asked to register their attendance and indicate if they would like to be kept informed of future planning consultations. Participants were then invited to look at a prepared exhibition and complete questions included on exhibition boards before the meeting began.

2. Meeting 1: Stakeholder Meeting Tuesday 13th May, St Peter’s Church, Marlborough

The following people attended and asked to be kept inform of the LDF process.

Sarah Simmonds World Heritage Site Officer Joan Davis Savernake Parish Council Shalbourne Parish Council Great Bedwyn Parish Council

Facilitators:

Ed White Head of Forward Planning & Transportation, KDC Chris Minors Planning Officer, KDC Colette Mallon Kennet Economic Partnership Manager Caroline Brailey Community Partnership Liaison Officer, KDC a. Introduction

Ed White welcomed everyone to the meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the key planning issues facing Marlborough Community Area and the future development options for Marlborough and its surrounding villages. It was emphasised that at this stage the purpose of the meeting was not to discuss specific sites but to consider the most appropriate general strategy for the area.

Participants provided with information about the planning issues officers had identified as general to Kennet district as a whole (see Appendix 18) and specific to Marlborough Community Area (see Appendix 18) taken from the consultation material. They were asked to consider:

89 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P P Which do you consider to be the 3 most important and why?

15 Notes of the discussion about these questions were recorded on flip chart sheets. These notes are reproduced below.

 Why have potential development sites not been highlighted within the consultation work?  Questions asked as to whether specific development sites will be chosen by current councillors.  Why has there been little take up of the Salisbury road business park? – Economic partnership manager explained that take up is now beginning to build momentum.  Issue raised regarding affordability of housing for key workers. High employment. Low cost housing should be made available for rent.  Issue raised regarding high outward commuting patterns.  Agreement with analysis of Marlborough as a tourist destination.  Lots of young people moving out.  Should try and focus small businesses within rural locations.  Small houses are being converted into larger dwellings – this means no affordable open market homes are available.  Need for low paid workers – where will they live?  When hospital was built 6 key worker homes built for hospital released to other people.  Temporary accommodation for key workers?  Shalbourne social housing residents are excluded from the community. Lack of facilities i.e. shops, transport.  People from Shalbourne tend to go to Marlborough.  Residents are also drawn to Marlborough because of the secondary schools.

90 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A c. Discussion Session Two: Development P P Participants were asked to consider what the consequences of ‘no growth’ or ‘strategic growth’ would have on Marlborough. Information about the consequences of development planning officers had identified on the consultation material was 15 available. (See Appendix 18)

Participants were asked to consider:

Do you agree with these potential consequences of a strategy of no future growth/strategic growth in Marlborough?

The following comments were recorded:

 Villagers looking for open market affordable housing. Want to keep character. Needs some housing.  Issue of concentration of social housing, need to keep the balance. Infill development ok.  Mix of affordable housing very important.  Movement of people from suburbs to rural areas does not work.  Car parking standards need to be raised.  Small houses / big houses – difficult to justify larger homes as social housing.  Homes are not affordable to anyone.  House price rises.  Can we designate what type of development takes place on??  Can sites be designated specifically for affordable housing?  Community facilities needed > how can we capture money for development – this would aid community cohesion – planning obligations.  Housing and employment key issues.  Kennet is doing a good job looking after the environment. Culture aspects need attention.  Need to make sure we do not change the environment.  WHSO – strong policy base needed for built and historic environment. Encroachment of development can be a real issue.  Rural areas should try and grow slowly, utilise pdl land.  There is not an appreciation of aesthetics? Sustainable homes.  Will the infrastructure be in place? – Water etc

91 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P  Flood issues – can hard surfaces i.e. driveways and patios be restricted. P  Landscaping issues – hedges rather than fences can this be restricted.

15 3. Meeting 2: Public Discussion 14th May 2008, St Peter’s Church, Marlborough

The following people attended and asked to be kept inform of the LDF process.

Chris Prasad Retired Richard Allen Resident Chris Carlon Froxfield Parish Council Bryan Castle Marlborough Town Council Robert Francis Resident Lincoln Williams Resident

Facilitators:

Ed White Head of Forward Planning & Transportation, KDC Carolyn Gibson Principal Planning Officer, KDC Colette Mallon Kennet Economic Partnership Manager

a. Introduction

Mr White also explained how the work that is being undertaken by Kennet District Council would be fed into the new unitary authority to allay fears that the consultation was a ‘waste of time’. Essentially each authority in Wiltshire is aiming to reach the same stage in the preparation of their Core Strategy i.e. the stage at which a preferred development strategy for their district can be prepared based on local consultation. A combined preferred development strategy can then be prepared for the whole of Wiltshire using existing information.

b. Discussion Session One: Planning Issues

Which do you consider to be the 3 most important and why?

92 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

Notes of the discussion about these questions were recorded on flip chart sheets. P These notes are reproduced below. P

 Sustaining communities- services and facilities e.g. School, doctors, shops, village 15 hall, bus services.  (New Housing in villages constrained by boundaries. Limited chance for in fill)  Affordable housing – often segregated which is wrong  Low cost often still not affordable  Problem in villages – people don’t get involved to develop sense of community.  Marlborough a community town, need to provide jobs in Marlborough as well as homes.  Shops have jobs available but if wages too low can’t afford to live here. No one takes jobs.  Key worker housing at Savernake – definition to loose so people outside the area eligible.  Need a choice of houses to match individual needs  When prices too high people have to leave the area – go to Swindon. c. Discussion Session Two: Consequences of Development

Participants were asked to consider what the consequences of ‘no growth’ or ‘strategic growth’ would have on Marlborough. Information about the consequences of development planning officers had identified on the consultation material was available. (See Appendix 18)

Participants were asked to consider:

Do you agree with these potential consequences of a strategy of no future growth/strategic growth in Marlborough?

The following comments were recorded:

Housing:  Need to know type of housing proposed before agree to numbers e.g. yes = small affordable  Affordable – rent suits teachers, nurses, shop workers salary.  Demand for houses if price similar to those in Swindon, low cost in Marlborough still too expensive.

93 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P  People travel from Swindon to Marlborough for work because can’t afford here. P Shopping:

15  Waitrose and M&S too expensive. Some residents drive out for alternatives. Food shopping the problem not convenience.  Retail should cater for all - should a site be found for a new store?  New Store? Area around Dean’s Garage – big enough? TH Whites on London Road? Citroen Garage site.  All have problems - release of land aspiration for higher values.  Would a new store need parking? Flooding:  No development in areas liable to flood.  Concerns about building to much infill (gardens, open spares) Salisbury Road, West  Housing an option?  New access to St John’s  Sustainability of town v environmental interests.  Sensitive design essential. Through traffic:  More homes will exacerbate problem  More young people – different housing pressures  Build more houses on single large plots...  Is restrictive policy in Area of Special Quality still relevant?  “Marlborough Adviser – delivered from Hungerford”.

Role for Marlborough in Future:  Elderly population increasing  Tourist destination?  Dormitory town?  Can we reduce the relative proportion of age groups? Increase the economically active – more homes and more jobs.  Resistance to impact on environment. Design an issue E.g., new business park on Salisbury Road. E.g. Art Block at College

94 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

 Need the jobs but concerned about the design. Better design at Salisbury Road and P may be more acceptable. P

15 4. What Happens Next?

At the end of both meetings, participants were advised that once the consultation ended on Monday 16th June all comments received would be collated and a report on the main findings would be presented to a meeting of Kennet’s Planning Policies Executive Committee in September 2008. Once Members of the Committee had given officers direction on a preferred development strategy for the district there would be a discussion of which sites were available for development to deliver the preferred strategy option.

Participants were reminded if they would like to receive a draft copy of a report of the meeting to verify the report was an accurate record of the meeting before Members consider the report in September they would need to provide e-mail details on the registration form they were asked to sign at the beginning of the meeting.

5. Addendum

Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

P Appendix 16 – Report of Pewsey Community Area Exhibition and Workshops P

CORE STRATEGY OPTIONS CONSULTATION

Report of Pewsey Community Area Exhibition and Workshops

Pewsey, Bouverie Hall

19th and 22nd May 2008 Daytime and Evening Events

In each community area 2 meetings were arranged:

Meeting 1: Stakeholder Consultation All parish councils in the community area and members of the community area partnerships for that local area were invited to send representatives.

Meeting 2: Members of the Public This meeting was open to anyone who had an issue about or interest in the future of their area.

Each meeting was preceded by an exhibition open to everyone at the same venue

97 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P Record of Comments Submitted During the Exhibitions P

The Exhibitions took place in Bouverie Hall Pewsey on Date 19th and 22nd May 2008.It 16 was open between 12pm and 5pm each day and a planning officer from Kennet District Council was in attendance throughout to answer questions about the display. On Monday 19th May 18 people visited the exhibition and on Thursday 22nd May about 25 people visited the exhibition.

People were invited to respond to questions on the exhibition boards and provided with information on how to complete the questions (See Appendix 18). Set out below are the comments recorded.

98 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

Q1 Do you agree with the general conclusions about strengths, weakness and threats P and opportunities (SWOT) in Pewsey Community Area? P

 9 people agreed with the conclusions of the SWOT 16  1 person disagreed with the conclusions of the SWOT

Q2 Is there anything you would add to or change in the SWOT?

 Station Railway Canal  Home Working  Small Offices  Don’t infill employment sites.  Community Facilities excellent sports centre & swimming pool  Railway Links, Bus etc.  Need less “pink” shops and more functional ones dry cleaning, green grocers etc.  New homes should be built to environmentally sustainability specs and all be affordable.  Rail commuters from outside Pewsey driving in. Parking for free around village, and then walking to station.  Support for remote working and internet would help craft start ups.  Too many shops of similar types are being allowed to set up in village. More care required with shop usage planning applications in future.  PACT centre already exists and supports new learners/businesses.  No car parking fees.  No car parking fees – if these where to be introduced in future it would be likely to encourage shoppers from outside village to take custom elsewhere and have serious impact on OAPS who even within village itself, rely on using cars to carry shopping and to get to shops.  Imposition of car parking fees driving away village visitors.  To infill brownfield sites including employment sites and make existing areas better.  Lack of support from Kennet planning in protecting existing employment sites.

Q3 Strategic Options Proposals put to the Secretary of State say that 6,000 new homes should be built in Kennet between 2006 and 2026. Taking account of houses already in the pipeline

99 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P we have to find land for a further 1,800 homes in the Core Strategy (during the P period up to 2021).

At the exhibition people were given 6 yellow dots and asked to place the yellow dots 16 on a map at the settlements they felt could accommodate growth. Each dot represented 300 houses.

Devizes 30% of dots placed Marlborough 27% of dots placed Tidworth/Ludgershall 40% of dots placed Pewsey 3% of dots placed

Additional comments recorded:

 Even the small villages could take a house or two they are not immune.  Make Pewsey a proper Market Town  Light industry and craft industry sized workshops should be included in any expansion.  There is already too much development in Pewsey and not enough infrastructure maintenance/ services to compensate i.e. potholes, transport, gas, water.

Q4 Local Options People were asked to indicate which of the local options for development they would prefer in Core Strategy

Small scale local development concentrated at Pewsey 2

Small scale local development directed at Pewsey/Market Lavington 3

Small scale local development directed at Pewsey/Market Lavington and selected larger villages 19

Q5 Local Options Outside the main towns, in smaller towns and villages, small scale development to meet local needs is appropriate to reinforce the role of those settlements. Using blue dots people were asked to identify which villages would benefit from small scale development.

100 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

Urchfont 4 P Great Cheverell 3 P

Market Lavington 3 16 West Lavington 3 Upavon 3 Netheravon 3 Pewsey 5 Burbage 4 Collingbourne Ducis 3 Great Bedwyn 6 Ramsbury 4

No additional comments recorded

Record of Meetings

1. Arrival

2. Meeting 1: Stakeholder Consultation on 19th May 2008, Bouverie Hall, Pewsey

The following people attended:

Alan West ………………………….. Pat Keers Pewsey Parish Council Michael Frankton Stanton St Bernard Edward Ferguson Wilcot Huish Parish Council Richard Fleet Wilcot Peter Deck Pewsey Stella Zweck Shalbourne/Bedwyn Anne Hayhoe Pewsey

Facilitators:

Ed White Head of Forward Planning & Transportation, KDC Carolyn Gibson Principal Planning Officer, KDC Colette Mallon Kennet Economic Partnership Manager Caroline Brailey Community Partnership Liaison Officer, KDC

101 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P a. Introduction P Ed White welcomed everyone to the meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the key planning issues facing Pewsey Community Area and the future 16 development options for Pewsey and its surrounding villages. It was emphasised that at this stage the purpose of the meeting was not to discuss specific sites but to consider the most appropriate general strategy for the area.

b. Discussion Session One: Planning Issues

Participants were provided with information about the planning issues which officers had identified as general to Kennet district as a whole (see Appendix 18) and specific to Pewsey Community Area (see Appendix 18) taken from the consultation material. They were asked to consider:

Which do you consider to be the 3 most important and why?

Notes of the discussion about these questions were recorded on flip chart sheets. These notes are reproduced below.

Table 1

Planning Issues  We have facilities  More growth not needed  Flexible accommodation needed  Work and Homes needed to be balanced  Pewsey outside NHS Resp Times  Need for better Spatial Balance  Home working – Social Care  Limited awareness of Public Transport  Railway Important Factor  Housing appears not affordable  Low cost not always taken up.

102 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

 Lost of small houses 2 in conversion P  Spare standards have social consequences. P

Table 2 16

Planning  Protecting the AONB – Encroaching on AONB lost for every.  Infrastructure – Traffic rat runs – school/station  If Pewsey takes more growth will affect villages.  More housing in Pewsey has improved shops.  Mis Match between type of jobs and cost of housing  Rethink policy on employment in villages – light industry to broad - craft based cottage industry – lorry/service access a problem in villages. Small scale  Bigger industries better in Pewsey out still appropriate scale.  One larger Industrial Site V smaller several in Pewsey? Release smaller sites for Housing?  Smaller sites could disperse impact of extension.  Infrastructure capacity should dictate scale of employment DVL  New Housing in villages doesn’t seem to help retain services – Houses too big – No involvement in community.  Youth No facilities SHAK in Pewsey needs more encouragement for “FREE PLAY” Cultural Change – More group Activities Pewsey could be seen as a Focus – Tennis, Football, Rugby.  Farming is biggest threat to biodiversity – more intensive changing farming practices – pressure for economic return.  The more you build the bigger effect on tourism – not enough Bed and Breakfasts Isolated accommodation ok, too much access can destroy what is special.  IT Issues – Broadband, Mobile reception – Discrete Infrastructure.  Appropriate Housing linked to employment.  Infrastructure and Communication  Scale of employment linked to scale of settlement on brown field sites.

TOP THREE ISSUES Appropriate housing linked to employment

103 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P Infrastructure and communications P Scale of employment linked to scale of settlement on brownfield sites

16 Table 3

ISSUE 1: Can more houses be built without breaching existing village boundaries?  Yes- Issue, small sites less than 15 = No affordable – Suggest new ratio applied e.g. 1:3 (in Pewsey Village)  Villages have differing views and should be consulted on each individual case.  Transport is an Issue – Some people don’t want to live in a small village, lack of services and transport. ISSUE 2: How can more employment land be provided in Pewsey?  Issue – have some sites, not necessarily right quality perhaps  Could existing sites be enlarged?  Does poor transport infrastructure put people off starting business in Pewsey.  Need jobs for local (esp. young) people.  Need range of business – mixed economy.  Business to suit environment would be good i.e. farm machinery. ISSUE 3: How to protect the role of Pewsey as a service centre?  Employment sites/premises must be retained I.e. No change of use.  People must access services in Pewsey to keep them.  Education  Health/Dental  Post Office  Keep Free Parking  Maintain retail floor space  “Community Spirit to provide pressure to maintain the services”

c. Discussion Session Two: Consequences of Development

Participants were asked to consider what the consequences of ‘no growth’ would have on Pewsey. Information about the consequences of development planning officers had identified on the consultation material was available. (See Appendix 18)

104 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

Participants were asked to consider: P P

Do you agree with these potential consequences of a strategy of no future growth/small scale local development in Pewsey? 16

The following comments were recorded:

Table 1

 Question of Dispersal to Villages V Unsustainable Housing Patterns.  Could Swindon take more houses?  Limited brown field site  Jobs mainly service industries  Co-op may be affected by Tesco in Tidworth  Long term usability of Co-op but it is currently a draw to other villages and towns (Marlborough)  Care home development – need for key worker accommodation.  Broomcroft – needs better and inviting access should be library and other community uses (Post Office)  Home working to be encouraged  Tourism growing in importance (with K & A)  Quite lanes Project = Failure  Tourism can have a downside  Sustainable construction – needs encouragement  Local Initiatives.

Table 2

What is a Service Centre?  Free Parking  Schools/Education – Primary, Secondary, Training  Range of basic shops – food, cards, bank.  Restaurants/Food outlets  Post Office  Leisure – range of Sports

105 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P  Health – Doctors, Dentists, Health, Clinic, Support for Carers. P  Community Support – PACT, SHAK

16  Local Jobs to support the centre  Fewer Commuters.

Consequences of No Growth:  “Critical Mass” Needs to be achieved to sustain shops- some of the shops already struggle no change.  May continue to struggle  Parishes closest to Pewsey may suffer if services decline  Housing – top end unaffected. Small houses may suffer – local people find it harder to stay local.  Employment – less jobs – more commuting  Employment needs to come first and housing follow  How do you generate more jobs?  Support for Business  Type of Jobs  Dedicated Bus services.  Expand Salisbury Road Site? – Good Access – concentrate on one site with good access  Parking issue when get one way at Wilcot Road.  No Way to accommodate change if No change.

Villages:  No benefit from new houses  Higher rents force local people out  Infill Only  Define local connections for affordable  Decline in agricultural employment  Problem with communications

106 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

Table 3 P P No Growth - Consequences  Lose Services if not enough population i.e. 5000 trigger for services to deliver. 16  Surrounding settlements would have to travel further.  Would Services improve if larger population services should cover all areas – MIU is 20 miles not acceptable. Some Growth  Any increase in growth will improve service centre.  Level of growth is appropriate?  100 – 200 over 20 years including windfalls? Negative Consequences  Would have to go outside boundary – AONB  Contrary to village policy.  Level of growth could get out of control Positive Consequences  Viable service centre (possibly)  Needs to be a mix  Must be for local people. Community Area general  If each hamlet/village took 5 new dwellings that would result in a large proportion of the allocation – 350+ (maybe 500)

3. Meeting 2: Public Discussion on 22nd May 2008, Bouverie Hall

Over 50 people attended the meeting. The following people asked to be kept informed of future planning consultations.

Mr T Harding Resident Caroline Dalryriple Resident Peter Foxton Resident Phil Burton Resident Beth Haslam Resident Jill Bromley Resident Adam Scott Resident E Boden Resident V Haskell Resident Mr P W Desforges Resident Mr John Cook Resident

107 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P Rod Fishlock Resident P J.H Bowler-Reed Resident T Tuxford Resident J Deck Resident 16 Sandra Sargent Resident Norman Tubb Resident Mr and Mrs Hames Resident Marilyn Cattle Resident Mrs P Mason Resident Kris Warry Resident Karen Mowatt Resident

Facilitators:

Ed White Head of Forward Planning & Transportation, KDC Carolyn Gibson Principal Planning Officer, KDC Andrew Guest North Team Leader, Development Control, KDC Caroline Brailey Community Partnership Liaison Officer, KDC

a. Introduction

Ed White welcomed everyone to the meeting. He explained that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the key planning issues facing Pewsey community area and the future development options for Pewsey and its surrounding villages. It was emphasised that at this stage the purpose of the meeting was not to discuss specific sites but to consider the most appropriate general strategy for the area.

After asking for a show of hands it became clear that about half of the people who had come to the meeting were concerned about a proposal by a local developer to build houses at Ball Road. It was agreed that it was important to discuss resident’s concerns about this proposal at the beginning of the meeting before turning to a discussion about future development options for the Pewsey area.

108 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

Mr White also explained how the work that is being undertaken by Kennet District P Council would be fed into the new unitary authority to allay fears that the P consultation was a ‘waste of time’. Essentially each authority in Wiltshire is aiming to reach the same stage in the preparation of their Core Strategy i.e. the stage at which a preferred development strategy for their district can be prepared based on local 16 consultation. A combined preferred development strategy can then be prepared for the whole of Wiltshire using existing information. b. Discussion Session One: Ball Road, Pewsey

BALL ROAD  Why are limits of development line through field? - Follows conservation area - Discussed at last 2 Local plan inquiries  In future existing permissions will be taken into account.  Is there a list of windfall sites?  Main concerns about development at Ball Road were:  Access - Effect on existing houses - Facilities - Character of area - Parking/garage. c. Discussion Session Two: Consequences of Development

As so many people attended the meeting it was not possible to break into small groups for discussion. Instead observations and comments were invited on what is an appropriate scale of growth for Pewsey. The following notes were recorded.

 3 Main towns should receive majority of growth – Devizes/ Marlborough/Tidworth.  Concern about mix of homes  Affordable housing needed because having to move to Swindon.  More jobs needed  Rates/rents for shops too high  Should take local housing need into account.  Release more land and house prices will come down-if don’t release land no homes for younger people  Ratio of affordable housing to open market needs to change?  Threshold of 15 too high for affordable housing

109 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P  What is there to do for youngsters?- SHAK P  S106 Ag should target this age group.

16  Children should have option to stay  Why can’t Pewsey be a similar size to Marlborough/Devizes?  No growth = dormitory  No growth = decline  Pewsey could be more sustainable if people used facilities  Fear is for too much growth.  Mass growth bad-needs to grow slowly and surely  Is the current boundary sufficient to allow incremental change?

 Loss of small employment sites disappointing.  Minimum growth could be achieved by keeping existing boundaries –it that is what’s wanted. – Original vote concluded YES - some doubts about this expressed later in discussion.  Small amount of development could help shops.  Too much constraint will put pressure on shops/pubs/employment sites to convert to houses.  Larger development should be mixed use.  If stick hard to boundary could be devastating – will get ‘ad – hoc’ development - need to be more flexible. (but not at Ball Road.)  Impact of amending boundaries on A.O.N.B  If extend boundaries at hospital- Wilcot drawn into Pewsey  Development boundary has done its job so far.  People who move into hospital site don’t spend money here, don’t work here – leave every day.  Must keep the sense of community  Be innovative about how we cater for jobs – use of IT

4. What Happens Next?

The meetings concluded with Carolyn Gibson advising participants that once the consultation ended on Monday 16th June all comments received would be collated and a report on the main findings would be presented to a meeting of Kennet’s Planning Policies Executive Committee in September 2008. Once Members of the Committee had given officers direction on a preferred development strategy for the

110 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

district there would be a discussion of which sites were available for development to P deliver the preferred strategy option. P

Participants were reminded that if they would like to receive a draft copy of a report of the meeting to verify the report was an accurate record of the meeting before 16 Members consider the report in September, they would need to provide e-mail details on the registration forms being circulated.

5. Addendum,

 It is the specifically recorded policy of both the Parish Council and the Community Partnership that development should be retained within the current limits of Development for Pewsey.

 There have been built in Pewsey over the past few years a considerable number of houses both within the large Hospital site and the numerous smaller windfall sites and these easily amount to a "fair share" for the village.

 When suggesting that each small settlement could accept 5 houses it was over a period of time in question and therefore did not amount to a great imposition.

Many residents from the Ball Road area attended the second meeting because of concerns about new housing. The following position statement, supported by residents, was handed to officers at the meeting.

Development in Pewsey – Ball Road delegation

 We support the use of brownfield sites for development  We particularly support the need for housing for locals and affordable homes where suitable  We support strongly the conservation area management proposals, and its defined areas of character that must be maintained  We ask that greenfield sites within the conservation area are reviewed and where possible taken out of the development limits  We ask that particular attention is given to the greenfield site east of Ball Road, adjacent to the AONB, and that this is moved outside the limits of development, as to develop here would go against both local and national guidance.

111

Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

Appendix 17 – Report of Tidworth Community Area Exhibition and Workshops P P

CORE STRATEGY OPTIONS CONSULTATION

Report of Tidworth Community Area Exhibition and Workshops

Tidworth Leisure Centre/Ludgershall Memorial Hall

9th and 12th June 2008 Daytime and Evening Events

In each community area 2 meetings were arranged:

Meeting 1: Stakeholder Consultation All parish councils in the community area and members of the community area partnerships for that local area were invited to send representatives.

Meeting 2: Members of the Public This meeting was open to anyone who had an issue about the future of their area.

Each meeting was preceded by an exhibition open to all at the same venue

This is a verbatim report of the meeting and comments posted on the exhibition. There is no attempt to analyse comments made. Throughout the report notes recorded during the meeting or comments posted on the exhibition boards are presented in Italics. Additional comments are presented in normal type.

113 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P Record of Comments Submitted During the Exhibitions P

The Exhibitions took place in Tidworth Leisure Centre on Tuesday 9th June and 17 Ludgershall Memorial on Thursday 12th June 2008. It was open between 12pm and 5pm each day and a planning officer from Kennet District Council was in attendance throughout to answer questions about the display.

People were invited to respond to questions on the exhibition boards and provided with information on how to complete the questions (See Appendix 18). Set out below are the comments recorded.

Q1 Do you agree with the general conclusions about strengths, weakness and threats and opportunities (SWOT) in Tidworth/Ludgershall Community areas?

 2 people agreed with the conclusions of the SWOT  0 People disagreed with the conclusions of the SWOT

Q2 Is there anything you would add to or change in the SWOT?

 Use development to bring forward infrastructure.  Make more privately owned land available for development.  More local services, shops, doctors, play areas.  Roads and traffic management arrangement are out of order with the rural area needs. We are a not a city.  Need more green space – don’t provide enough.  Children have no where to go and can cause trouble.  Don’t build on what we have.

114 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

 More trees in housing areas. P  The academy was not a Kennet initiative. Now you are trumpeting it as a reason to P

accept more housing in the area. 17  Both settlement warrant SSLSD Status  Ludgershall and Tidworth are complementary settlements which should be given equal weighting under new grouping.  Castledown is an eye sore.  Tesco supports the local population in terms of shopping but in doing so destroys local businesses.  Get need to the economics of the by brand businesses.  Management changes have meant a surfeit of houses for sale nationally and here.  Play provision in Ludgershall for 4-9 year olds, 10-15 year olds, 15 Hopeless.  Tidworth has the space to accommodate more housing but the infrastructure – schools, health services etc. is lacking.  Social housing is not needed – owner occupied is.  There has been no increase in the infrastructure of locals services to support: the recent spate of housing already added to Ludgershall i.e. GP’s surgeries, primary school and play group, facilities for teenagers etc.  Tidworth has always been a garrison town.  Why does there need to be a “balance” between military and Civilians. As a Garrison it is only natural that it been dominated by the military.

Q3 Strategic Options Proposals put to Secretary of State say that 6,000 new homes should be built in Kennet between 2006 and 2026. Taking account of houses already in the pipe line we have to find land further 1,800 homes in the Core Strategy (during the period up 2021).

At the exhibition people were given 6 yellow dots and asked to place the yellow dots on the map at the settlements they felt could accommodate growth. Each dot represented 300 houses.

Marlborough 3% of dots placed Devizes 6% of dots placed Tidworth and Ludgershall 91% of dots placed

115 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P Additional Comments recorded: P I feel I am not in a position to comment on other villages since other than driving past, 17 through or near them I have no actual experience of them. Anywhere but Ludgershall.

Q4 Local Options People were asked to indicate which of the local options for development they would prefer in Core Strategy

Small scale local development concentrated at Tidworth/Ludgershall 0

Small scale local development directed at Tidworth/Ludgershall 0

Small scale local development directed at Tidworth/Ludgershall and larger villages 0

Q5 Local Options

Outside the main towns, in smaller towns and villages, small scale development to meet local needs is appropriate to reinforce the role of those settlements. Using blue dots people were asked to identify which villages would benefit from small scale development.

There were no blue dots placed by people to identify which villages would benefit from small scale development.

Report of Meetings

1. Arrival

2. Meeting 1: Stakeholder Discussion Tuesday 9th June 2008, Tidworth Leisure Centre

The Following people who attended

Nikki Winter Collingbourne Ducis Parish Council Humphrey Jones Tidworth Town Council David Wildman TCAP Vice Chairman (Housing, Built, Environment) Phil Gill Collingbourne Ducis Parish Council Clerk

116 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

Facilitators: P P Ed White Head of Forward Planning & Transportation, KDC Carolyn Gibson Principle Planning Officer, KDC Colette Mallon Kennet Economic Partnership Manager 17 a. Introduction

Ed White welcomed everyone to the meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the key planning issues facing Tidworth community area and the future development options for it’s surrounding villages. It was emphasised that at this stage the purpose of the meeting was not to discuss specific sites but to consider the most appropriate general strategy for the area.

Participants were provided with information about the planning issues officers had identified as general to Kennet district as a whole (see Appendix 18) and specific to Tidworth and Ludgershall Community Area (see Appendix 18) taken from consultation material. They were asked to consider:

Which do you consider to be the most important and why?

Planning Issues:  Need broadband in villages  How can provide more opportunities closer to home to reduce travel.  Increase job opportunities on existing employment sites e.g. Bourne works in Collingbourne Ducis  Some villages won’t want employment development because of impact – noise disturbance.  Issue ok but need to be aware of size of place applying to e.g. Chute very small.  Affordable not a lot of demand in villages  Supply will dry up if housing delivery slows down.  Land for housing

117 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P  Add more balanced rather than “balance” P  Bring business park on as a priority to begin influencing balance- jobs can affect out

17 commuting

c. Discussion Session Two: Consequences of Development

Participants were asked consider what the consequences of ‘no growth’ or ‘strategic grow’ would have on Tidworth/Ludgershall. Information about the consequences of development planning officers had identified on the consultant material was available. (See Appendix 18).

The following notes were recorded:

Strategic Growth:  Zog/ School/ Castledown good opportunity for energy saving.  Perham Down needs to be drawn into community.  Is there a need for more employment land for different types of industry?  What other housing sites are there?  Talk to MOD now about sites that may be available in 5 years.  Need to justify more growth.  Are there commercial thresholds- reach certain population then attract new shops.  Preferred option – 1b (strategic options)  Village preference – not 2c. If do go for 2c stick Rigidly to sustainable criteria – Collingbourne Ducis has no health services  Lack of public transport means no access to evening facilities if don’t drive – youth suffer especially  Benefits to villages of Tidworth and Ludgershall achieving their objectives.  The draw to use more local facilities  Is Tesco bus an option?  Reduces time to do shopping and weekly trips.  Housing crucial to retail revival.  How many houses?  3000 target before  Tesco has had an impact on some shops but perception shoppers come only to Tesco.  Looking for shops to add valve no more service industries.  2 Year window? Other competitors will come on stream.

118 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

 Tidworth and Ludgershall moving towards more co-operation. / Less suspicion. P  Need to move forward together. P

 The Wellington College proposal can bind the two communities share area. 17  Land release could be an issue – Medical Depot could be next site to go in Ludgershall.

Housing: Who will buy new houses?  New academy – Wellington College – may draw people in – good school develops local reputation.  Need key worker houses much MOD rented.  Promotional work on going for bringing new employment.  Changes in military terms and duty likely to stay longer and need a home. Ex military may then stay on.  Affordable can anyone other than officers afford to buy.  Need to develop a sense of belonging so will stay on.  Perham down good example of how better housing can make difference.

Villages: Retain the essence of the villages.  No bus services in the evening need better links to Tidworth/ Ludgershall  Collingbourne seen 100 homes built or committed lately  Tidworth and Ludgershall does provide services  Collingbourne Ducis school. Full – no spare capacity  Link schemes very good.  Everliegh Farm shop about to close  Horse riding and employment associated with – local economy

Additional notes recorded on the general discussion by Collette Mallon were:

Housing Areas:  No Brownfield site in Tidworth area for housing. MSA depot shame it is not used for employment. Majority of land owned by military.  The Road and awful turn off out A338 should be a Tidworth junction at other end of Ludgershall Road is bridge. Housing Areas:

119 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P  By pass of Ludgershall should come from near the castle to the side of Faberstown P – near lay-by. Take round back of castle. Heavier traffic comes along the A338 road

17 should come from Collingbourne Ducis, round back of Ludgershall to far side Faberstown.  Need to have growth in Tidworth and Ludgershall. It is limited by availability of land and infrastructure and resources, and amenities and services.  In Collingbourne and Everliegh – only 1 small shop.  Tidworth continual change over of people. Problem with soldiers serving abroad is leaving wives and families behind – especially when their families live a long way away. Don’t believe community will ever be balanced.  Low cost housing needed. Development on Pennings Road near church houses opening right on the pavement – dangerous for families. Problem in area – most of land is owned by Defence Estates even around Everleigh – not suitable for housing development because no facilities in Everleigh. Important that jobs are provided to prevent an outward community to Andover & railway station. Tidworth – Tesco made big difference to area,  Salisbury Plain should be protected – we walk on the plain – there ought to be entailment or supervision of 4 wheel motors bikes which thuds over the plain – the military should have to do this military could make more use of the range road.  In favour of Bourne Valley scheme – would need off road area for parking near Leckford crossroads near to building area. Need to attend to flooding. Problem with junction on A342 where road from Collingbourne Ducis joins it – very dangerous – junction should be changed back to proper T junction. Realise it is not possible to get a balanced community in Tidworth (ex families officer). Need better services especially medical facilities. Need medical centre for out of hours in Tidworth – perhaps in army PHCC facility. Long way to any hospital – Chippenham over an hour.

120 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

3. Meeting 2: Public Discussion P Thursday 12th July, Ludgershall Memorial Hall P

The Following people who attended and asked to be kept inform of the LDF process. 17 Mr Whitehead WPB Ian Townsend Resident Maggie Dilks Resident Kim and Meg Wright Resident of Everliegh

Facilitators:

Ed White Head of Forward Planning & Transportation, KDC Chris Minors Planning Officer, KDC Colette Mallon Kennet Economic Partnership Manager Val Powley Community Planning Liaison Officer, KDC a. Introduction

Ed White welcomed everyone to the meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the key planning issues facing Ludgershall and the community area and the future development options for its surrounding villages. It was emphasised that at this stage the purpose of the meeting was not to discuss specific sites but to consider the most appropriate general strategy for the area.

The meeting continued with a general discussion about the future of Ludgershall and Tidworth

For the discussion participants were provided with information about planning issues officers had identified as general to Kennet District as a whole (see Appendix 18) and specific to Tidworth and Ludgershall Community Area (see Appendix 18) taken from the consultation material. They were asked to consider:

Notes of the discussion were recorded and are reproduced below.

 Rumours of large scale development  Informed of 2 outstanding allocations  Development ok if infrastructure is in place.  Tidworth and Ludgershall should be looked at separately

121 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P  Discussion of complementary roles. P  Tesco employment and resource does not support local small retailers.

17  Traffic issues within Ludgershall large HGV’s moving within town.  Explanation given of Potential for traffic improvements.  Fast moving traffic within Ludgershall  Who will actually live in new properties within Tidworth if they are built?  Will new residential development just be for retired military personnel?  Supply of land. - MOD  Infrastructure will need to be put in place before development.  Academy might help the education problem.  Infrastructure very important schools, surgeries, and dentists.  Infrastructure/planning  Money should be made available up front to pay for infrastructure – (infrastructure plan)  Will houses be built before infrastructure?  Potential time delay in development of infrastructure.  House prices, will this effect delivery?  Collingbourne Ducis, not major site for development.  Lots of movement between settlement areas and schools.  Timing of buses very slow.  Movement of traffic  Design of new development very important.  Quality of build very important, do not want development to degrade.

 MSD depot should have been used for development.  Social housing – potential knock on effect on crime etc.  Social housing should be pepper potted etc.  Housing to support super garrison consultation of types of housing.  Play areas on new developments are fenced off.  Important to have play provision for new homes.  Tidworth needs identity  Station road needs to be a high quality redevelopment.  Super Garrison can bring opportunities.

122 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

4. What Happens Next? P P The meetings concluded with officers advising participants that once the consultation ended on Monday 16th June all comments received would be collated and a report on the main findings would be presented to a meeting of Kennet’s Planning Policies 17 Executive Committee in September 2008. Once Members of the Committee had given officers direction on a preferred development strategy for the district there would be a discussion of which sites were available for development to deliver the preferred strategy option.

5. Addendum

123

Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

Appendix 18- Material Handed out at exhibition and Workshops P P Agenda 18

Agenda

1. Introduction 7.00

2. Discussion Session One 7.10

- Planning Issues

3. Discussion Session Two 7.30

- Consequences of Development

4. What Happens Next? 8.25

125 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement P Handout at Exhibition P

Thank you for taking the time to visit this 18 exhibition. The panels summarise information available in the main consultation pamphlet that you can pick up at the end of the display.

As you read through the information we would like you to use the post-it notes, pen and dots to react to questions in the display. Please return the empty bags at the end.

Community Area Overview  Do you agree with the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) we have identified in Marlborough Community Area?  Is there anything you would change in the SWOT or add to the SWOT?

Strategic Housing Growth To meet the housing targets we have been set land for another 1800 houses are needed in Kennet. We would like you to give us an indication of which main settlements in Kennet could accommodate this growth. The yellow dots in this pack represent 300 homes. Can you use them to indicate which towns – Devizes, Marlborough, Tidworth/Ludgershall – could absorb this housing growth.

Development in Small Towns and Villages We would also like you to consider the role of some of the smaller towns and villages in the district. Would any of the villages benefit from small scale development to reinforce their role as service centres to the rural areas?

 Which of the local options in the display do you support?  Which villages do you think would benefit from small scale development?

THANK YOU AGAIN FOR HELPING US.

126 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

P Planning Issues – Kennet P Discussion Session One: PLANNING ISSUES – KENNET 18 (For information only)

These are the planning issues we have identified that are relevant to the whole of Kennet

How to deliver homes that are affordable to local incomes and meet local need.

How to provide a high standard of housing particularly for the elderly.

HOUSING How to secure community benefits from small housing sites.

How to encourage new premises for smaller businesses.

How to increase jobs on existing employment sites

How to diversify the rural economy. ECONOMY How to provide an adequate & flexible supply of employment land

How to protect the local built & natural environment

How to encourage more sustainable forms of development

How to protect & enhance the AONB ENVIRONMENT

How to extend the use & availability of meeting places

How to support existing community initiatives

How to improve services to support a growing population COMMUNITY

How to encourage people to live and work locally

How to improve transport links between rural areas and service centres

MOVEMENT How to encourage people to walk, cycle or use public transport

127 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement P Planning Issues – Devizes Community Area P

Discussion Session One: 18 PLANNING ISSUES – DEVIZES COMMUNITY AREA

These are the planning issues we have identified that are specific to the Devizes Community Area.

Which do you consider to be the 3 most important and why?

How to insure housing growth does not intensify traffic congestion. How to secure community benefits from large housing developments. How to provide more shops on the Devizes Central Car Park. How to address pockets of unemployment within Devizes. How to encourage smaller businesses to balance dominance of large employers in Devizes. How to protect the local environment. How to support the roles of larger villages. How to enhance and develop Devizes’ cultural heritage. How to deliver redevelopment of the Wharf and the reuse of the Assize Courts. How to make sure enough parking is available in Devizes. How to provide corrective measures to the road network to accommodate traffic growth.

Are there other planning issues in Devizes we have missed?

128 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

P Consequences of Development – Devizes Town P

Discussion Session Two: 18 CONSEQUENCES OF DEVELOPMENT – DEVIZES TOWN

Devizes Focus for Development

Do you agree with these potential consequences of focusing development within Devizes?

 If not, why not?  Are there any potential consequences that are unacceptable?  Are there any potential consequences that have been missed?

1. Reinforces Devizes as main economic driver in Kennet

2. Maintains high level of people living and working in the town and may reduce net in- commuting of workers

3. Maintain range of housing and affordability

4. May facilitate town centre improvements

5. Risk to environmental quality from impact of development

6. Provide funding to address congestion in short term, although long term effects are unknown

Discussion Session Two: CONSEQUENCES OF DEVELOPMENT – DEVIZES

No Growth Option

No growth within Devizes has not been highlighted as an option.

 Is a no growth option a viable alternative?  What would the consequences of a no growth option be?  Are these consequences acceptable?

129 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement P Planning Issues – Marlborough Community Area P Discussion Session One: 18 PLANNING ISSUES – MARLBOROUGH

These are the planning issues we have identified that are specific to the Marlborough Community Area.

Which do you consider to be the 3 most important and why?

How to provide affordable housing in the community area How to provide more housing without damaging the environment. How to make sure shops in Marlborough town centre meet local needs. Whether to expand Marlborough town centre. How to support the aims of the Avebury World Heritage Site Management Plan. How can Marlborough grow when surrounded by landscapes of national importance. How to improve the role of Marlborough. How to support the roles of larger villages. How to manage through traffic in Marlborough.

Are there other planning issues in Marlborough we have missed?

130 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

P Consequences of Development P

Discussion Session Two: CONSEQUENCES OF DEVELOPMENT – MARLBOROUGH TOWN 18

No Growth Option

Do you agree with these potential consequences of a strategy of no future growth in Marlborough?

 If not, why not?  Are there any potential consequences that are unacceptable?  Are there any potential consequences that have been missed?

1. Only focus on provision of affordable housing to meet local needs

2. Protects existing environmental quality

3. Limited release of housing land could exacerbate price affordability problems

4. Limited opportunity to capture investment in the town centre

5. Limited opportunity to balance homes and jobs and reduce in commuting for work

6. Reinforces the slow growth in population and economically active population

131 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P Discussion Session Two: P CONSEQUENCES OF DEVELOPMENT – MARLBOROUGH

18 Strategic Growth Option

Do you agree with these potential consequences of a strategy of significant strategic growth in Marlborough?

 If not, why not?  Are there any potential consequences that are unacceptable?  Are there any potential consequences that have been missed?

1. Improved range of housing and affordability.

2. Facilitate commercial improvements to the town centre

3. Caters for a growth in the economy and tourism

4. Improves levels of self containment by balancing homes and jobs

5. Risk to environmental quality from development

6. Increased awareness that Marlborough is not a ‘dormitory’ town

7. Increases the opportunity for community gain from development

8. Risk that congestion will increase

132 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

P Planning Issues – Pewsey Community Area P Discussion Session One: PLANNING ISSUES – PEWSEY 18

These are the planning issues we have identified that are specific to the Pewsey Community Area.

Which do you consider to be the 3 most important and why?

Can more houses be built without breaching existing village boundaries? Do the shops in Pewsey meet the needs of local residents? Should the retail centre diversify? How can more employment land be provided in Pewsey? How to protect biodiversity from the impact of development. How to support the role of Pewsey as a service centre. How to enhance and develop cultural heritage through the Broomcroft site. How to promote Pewsey as a tourist destination.

Are there other planning issues in Pewsey we have missed?

133 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement P Consequences of Development P Discussion Session Two: 18 CONSEQUENCES OF DEVELOPMENT – PEWSEY TOWN

No Growth Option

Do you agree with these potential consequences of a strategy of no future growth in Pewsey?

 If not, why not?  Are there any potential consequences that are unacceptable?  Are there any potential consequences that have been missed?

1. Only focus on provision of affordable housing to meet local needs

2. Protects existing environmental quality

3. Limited release of housing land could exacerbate price affordability problems

4. Limited opportunity to capture investment in the town centre

5. Limited opportunity to balance homes and jobs and reduce in commuting for work

6. Reinforces the slow growth in population and economically active population

134 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

Discussion Session Two: P CONSEQUENCES OF DEVELOPMENT – PEWSEY P

Local Growth Option 18

Do you agree with these potential consequences of a strategy of small scale local development directed to Pewsey?

 If not, why not?  Are there any potential consequences that are unacceptable?  Are there any potential consequences that have been missed?

1. Provision of affordable and open market housing to meet local needs

2. Development at a scale to reinforce Pewsey’s role as a service centre

3. Risk to environmental quality from development

4. Reliance on Pewsey as a rural service centre could increase

5. Community based facilities could benefit from developer contributions

6. Local support for existing community facilities

7. Stimulate rejuvenation of the village centre

135 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P Planning Issues – Tidworth Community Area P Discussion Session One: PLANNING ISSUES – TIDWORTH 18 These are the planning issues we have identified that are specific to the Tidworth Community Area.

Which do you consider to be the 3 most important and why?

Make sure enough land is released for housing. How to improve job opportunities on employment sites. How to increase the vitality and viability of retail centres. How to protect and support the objectives for Salisbury Plain. How to support the Bourne Valley scheme. How to develop the identity of the community in Tidworth. How to encourage a balanced military/civilian population in Tidworth. How to support the objectives of the Tidworth CA transport study.

Are there other planning issues specific to the Tidworth Community Area we have missed?

136 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

P Consequences of Development P Discussion Session Two: CONSEQUENCES OF DEVELOPMENT- TIDWORTH TOWN 18

No Growth Option

Do you agree with these potential consequences of a strategy of no future growth in Tidworth/Ludgershall?  If not, why not?  Are there any potential consequences that are unacceptable?  Are there any potential consequences that have been missed?

1. Continued under provision of open market housing and affordable homes

2. Fails to address the imbalance between the civilian population and the military

3. The poor perception of Tidworth and Ludgershall will be difficult to change

4. Inability to capture and promote private investment opportunities

5. Increasing disengagement with the local community leading to a further loss of social cohesion

6. Protection of the environment from the impact of development

137

Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P Discussion Session Two: P CONSEQUENCES OF DEVELOPMENT - TIDWORTH

18 Strategic Growth Option

Do you agree with these potential consequences of a strategy of significant strategic growth in Tidworth/Ludgershall?  If not, why not?  Are there any potential consequences that are unacceptable?  Are there any potential consequences that have been missed?

1. Promotes a better balance between the civilian and military population.

2. Provides the opportunity to reinforce the complementary roles of Tidworth and Ludgershall through investment.

3. Potential to increase employment opportunities and promote private investment.

4. Increasing community involvement and social cohesion.

5. Risk to the environment from the impact of development.

6. Supports local ambition to increase the supply of open market homes.

7. Reduces dependency on Devizes as main centre in Kennet.

138 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

Appendix 19 – List of Respondents P P Letters & Questionnaire Responses

Name or Organisation DPD Body Type of Response 19 Abbotts, Ms Z Individual Questionnaire Paper Alexander, Mr P.W.E Individual Questionnaire Paper Allen, Ms S Individual Questionnaire Electronic Alliston, C Individual Questionnaire Electronic Amos, Mr N Individual Questionnaire Paper Andrews Mrs V Individual Questionnaire Paper Ansell, R Individual Questionnaire Paper Army - Defence Estates Other E-mail Aspinall, Mr Individual Questionnaire Paper Aster Housing Group General Questionnaire Electronic Atkins Limited Other Questionnaire Electronic Aust, Mr K E Individual Questionnaire Electronic Aydin, Mrs E Individual Questionnaire Paper Baldrey, P Individual Questionnaire Paper Ball Family Trust Other Questionnaire Paper Ballin, Mr L Individual Questionnaire Paper Barcham, Mr F Individual Questionnaire Paper Beazley, Mr R Individual Questionnaire Paper Beegree, T J Individual Questionnaire Paper Bell, Mr V individual Questionnaire Paper Bentley, Mr K Individual Questionnaire Paper Berkeley Strategic Land Other Letter Berwick Bassett & W'bourne Monkton PC Specific Questionnaire Paper Bierschenk, A J Individual Questionnaire Electronic Bish, J Other Questionnaire Paper Black, Mr K Individual Questionnaire Paper Boden, J Individual Questionnaire Electronic Boswell, Mr E Individual Questionnaire Paper Bray, Mr S Individual Questionnaire Paper Brew, Mr M Individual Questionnaire Electronic Bridewell, Mrs A Individual Questionnaire Electronic British Waterways Other Questionnaire Electronic Brookes, Mr G E Individual Questionnaire Paper Brown, Mr & Mrs P J Individual Questionnaire Paper Brown, Mr K D Individual Questionnaire Paper Budden, Mr R Individual Questionnaire Paper Burbage Parish Council Specific Questionnaire Paper Burn, Mr H Individual Letter Butler, Mr D Individual Questionnaire Electronic Carmichael, Mr A Individual Questionnaire Paper Carter Jonas LLP Other Questionnaire Paper Carter, Mr N Individual Questionnaire Paper Cashman, Mr P Individual Questionnaire Paper

139

Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P Name or Organisation DPD Body Type of Response P Cattle, Ms M Individual Questionnaire Paper Chaffey, Mr R Individual Questionnaire Paper Chapman, Mrs E A Individual Questionnaire Paper 19 Charles Planning Associates Ltd, Mr Neame Other Questionnaire Paper Clapp, R M Individual Questionnaire Paper Clarke, Ms S Individual Questionnaire Paper Cleland, Mrs A Individual Questionnaire Paper Clifford, Mrs T Individual Questionnaire Paper Cockrell, Mr J P Individual Questionnaire Electronic Connolly, M Individual Questionnaire Paper Coslett, B Individual Questionnaire Electronic Country Land and Business Association General E-mail Cowley, Mr & Mrs Individual Questionnaire Paper Crosbee, Mrs J Individual Questionnaire Paper Crown Estate (Agent: Entec) Other Letter Cuckow, V Individual Questionnaire Paper Dames, Basil & Elizabeth Individual Letter Dav Edwards, Mr & Mrs Individual Questionnaire Paper Davis, Ms K Individual Questionnaire Paper Davison, Mr P Individual Letter Dawe, Janis Individual Questionnaire Paper Dennis, Mr M Individual Questionnaire Paper Devizes Community Area Partnership General Questionnaire Paper Devizes Development Partnership, Lay, Mr General Letter P Devizes Town Council Other Letter Dixon, L Individual Questionnaire Electronic Dolman, Mr D Individual Questionnaire Electronic Doyle, Mr T Individual Questionnaire Electronic Dreweatt Neate Other Questionnaire Electronic D'Souza, Miss E R D Individual Questionnaire Paper Duffen, Ms J Individual Questionnaire Paper Dunn, Mr D Individual Questionnaire Paper Dykes, Mr R L Individual Questionnaire Paper Dykes, Mrs I A Other Questionnaire Electronic Eley, Mr M B Individual Questionnaire Paper Ellison, Mr C Individual Questionnaire Paper Environment Agency Specific E-mail Essex, Mr D Individual Questionnaire Paper Farrell, F Individual Questionnaire Electronic Ford, Mr AJ Individual Questionnaire Electronic Foster, Ms A individual Questionnaire Paper Fyfield & West Overton Parish Council Specific Questionnaire Electronic Gay, J Individual Questionnaire Paper Giles. Mrs J Individual Questionnaire Paper Gittins, Mrs T Individual Questionnaire Paper Goodfield, A P individual Questionnaire Paper Government Office for the South West Specific Letter

140 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

Name or Organisation DPD Body Type of Response P Graham, Mr C. T. Individual Questionnaire Paper P Great Bedwyn Parish Council Specific Questionnaire Electronic Greenwood, Mrs J Individual Questionnaire Paper Hamld, Mr S Individual Questionnaire Paper 19 Hancock, A Individual Questionnaire Paper Hargreaves, Ms D Individual Questionnaire Paper Harris, Ms R Individual Questionnaire Paper Harrison, Mr S Individual Questionnaire Paper Hart, X Individual Questionnaire Electronic Hartley, Mr B Individual Questionnaire Paper Hatala, T Individual Questionnaire Paper Hawes, Mrs A L Individual Questionnaire Paper Hayhoe, Cllr Mrs A, KDC General E-mail Heath, Mr J Individual Questionnaire Electronic Heath, Mrs D M & Ogilvie, Mrs J E Individual Questionnaire Paper Highways Agency Specific Letter Hills Property Ltd (Agent: Barton Willmore Other Letter Planning Partnership) Holmes, Mr C Individual Questionnaire Paper Humphreys, Mr & Mrs Individual Questionnaire Electronic Humphries, Cllr C, KDC General Questionnaire Paper Ineson, Mrs S Individual Questionnaire Paper J & G MacDonald Farming Other Questionnaire Paper J.A.S. Macdonald (representing Astor Group) Other Letter Jackson, Mr C Individual Questionnaire Paper Jakeman, Mr P Individual Questionnaire Electronic Jeddon, Ms L Individual Questionnaire Paper Jefferies, Mr I Individual Questionnaire Paper Jones Individual Questionnaire Electronic Jones, C Individual Questionnaire Electronic Jones, Mr I Individual Questionnaire Electronic Kennet CPRE General Questionnaire Paper Kennet Passengers Other E-mail King, Mr B Individual Questionnaire Electronic King, Mr J F Individual Questionnaire Paper King, Mrs Individual Questionnaire Paper Kingsland, Mrs J.D Individual Questionnaire Paper Kinwardstone Ltd, Younger, Mr C Other Questionnaire Electronic Lamb, Mr & Mrs Individual Questionnaire Paper Lane, R Individual Letter Langton, K Individual Questionnaire Paper Leighton, Mr D Individual Questionnaire Paper Libertino real Dos Sanios Individual Questionnaire Paper Llewellyn, L Other Questionnaire Paper Lloyd, Mr A Individual Questionnaire Paper Lovett, Mr A individual Questionnaire Paper Ludgershall Environment Group Other Questionnaire Paper Ludgershall Parish Council Specific Questionnaire Electronic

141

Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P Name or Organisation DPD Body Type of Response P Mackison, Mr P Individual Questionnaire Paper Maclachlan, Mr A Individual Questionnaire Paper Market Lavington Parish Council Specific Letter 19 Marlborough Chamber of Commerce General Letter Marsh, L & C General Letter Martindale, Don Individual Questionnaire Paper Mason, Mr A Individual Questionnaire Paper Massey, Mr T Individual Questionnaire Paper Masters, Mrs J Individual Questionnaire Paper Maxwell, Mr D Individual Questionnaire Paper Maxwell, Mr M Individual Questionnaire Electronic McCulley, D Individual Questionnaire Paper McSweeney, Mr D Individual Questionnaire Electronic Mellor, Mr I Individual Questionnaire Paper Mellor, T Individual Questionnaire Paper Mike Read Associates Other Questionnaire Paper Mitchell, Mr K Individual Questionnaire Paper Monk, Mr K Other Questionnaire Electronic Morgan, Mr P Individual Questionnaire Paper Morgan, P Individual Questionnaire Electronic Morton, Mr J Individual Questionnaire Electronic Myatt, Mrs K Individual Questionnaire Electronic Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners Other Letter Natural England Specific Letter Newell, Mr P Individual Questionnaire Paper Nock, Mr Individual Questionnaire Paper North Wessex Downs AONB General Questionnaire Electronic Norton, Ms J Individual Questionnaire Paper Norton, P & J Individual Questionnaire Paper Ormerod, Mr R Individual Questionnaire Electronic Ormerod, Mrs Individual Questionnaire Paper Packham, J Individual Questionnaire Electronic Parkins, M Mr Individual E-mail Patching, Mr M Other Letter Persand, A Individual Questionnaire Paper Persimmon Special Projects Western Other Letter Pewsey Area Community Trust General Questionnaire Paper Pewsey Community Area Partnership General Questionnaire Paper Pockett, Mr P Individual Questionnaire Electronic Potter, Mr S Individual Questionnaire Paper Prasad, Mr C Individual Questionnaire Paper Pryor, S Individual Questionnaire Paper Pugg, Mr & Mrs Individual Questionnaire Paper Ramsey, Mr & Mrs Individual Questionnaire Paper Redhone Trust General Questionnaire Electronic Reeves, Ms P Individual Questionnaire Paper RH Lloyd- Jones, Mr & Mrs individual Questionnaire Paper

142 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

Name or Organisation DPD Body Type of Response P Rigden, Mr L Individual Questionnaire Paper P Rose, J Other Questionnaire Electronic Rowland, Mr & Mrs Individual Questionnaire Electronic RPS Planning & Environment Other Letter 19 Rubach, Mr M Individual Questionnaire Paper Sadlier, Mrs V C Individual Questionnaire Paper Salley,Mr J Individual Questionnaire Paper Saunders, Mr G individual Questionnaire Paper Savernake Parish Council Specific Letter Savory, Mr & Mrs individual Questionnaire Paper Scorer, Mr T Individual Questionnaire Electronic Sedwick, Mr T Individual Questionnaire Electronic Selwyn, Mr J Individual Questionnaire Paper Selwyn, Mr J Individual Questionnaire Electronic Sheppard, Mr A Individual Questionnaire Paper Shirley, P J Individual Questionnaire Paper Simons, A Individual Letter Simons, Mrs H Individual Questionnaire Paper Sincock, G Individual Questionnaire Paper Smith, L Individual Questionnaire Electronic Smith, Mr I Individual Questionnaire Paper Smith, Mr T Individual Questionnaire Paper Smith, Mrs K M Individual Questionnaire Paper South West Regional Assembly Specific Letter Spear, Mr J R Individual Questionnaire Paper Stacpoole, P.M.R Individual Questionnaire Paper Stevenson, Mr M Individual Questionnaire Paper Still, A H Individual Questionnaire Paper Stokes, Mr M Individual Questionnaire Electronic Stone, Mr & Mrs Individual Questionnaire Paper Stuart, Ms A Individual Questionnaire Paper Swindon Borough Council Specific Letter Tanner, Mrs J Individual Questionnaire Paper Tanner, Ms J Individual Questionnaire Paper Taylor Individual Questionnaire Paper Taylor, Cllr Mrs M, WCC General Questionnaire Paper Taylor, J Individual Questionnaire Paper Taylor, Mr P M Individual Questionnaire Paper Tesco Stores Limited - Tidworth Other Letter Thames Water Utilities Ltd Specific Letter The Theatres Trust Other Questionnaire Paper The Trust for Devizes Other Questionnaire Paper Thompson, J Individual Questionnaire Electronic Thompson, Mr R Individual Questionnaire Paper Tidworth Community Area Partnership General Questionnaire Paper Tidworth & District Chamber of Commerce General Questionnaire Paper Tidworth Town Council Specific Questionnaire Electronic

143

Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P Name or Organisation DPD Body Type of Response P Tidworth Town Council, Jones, Mr H Specific Questionnaire Paper Tock, Mr H Individual Questionnaire Paper Tolhurst, Mr P Individual Questionnaire Paper 19 Trust for Devizes General Letter Tyrrell, Mr & Mrs Individual Questionnaire Paper Urchfont Parish Council, Batt Mr A Specific Questionnaire Paper Urchfont Parish Council, Read Mr J Specific Questionnaire Paper Valentine, Mr R Individual Questionnaire Paper Wakeford, Mr R Individual Questionnaire Paper Walker, A Individual Letter Warren, Mrs J Individual Questionnaire Paper Watson, Mr R Individual Questionnaire Paper Weeks, Mrs K Individual Questionnaire Paper Whimley, Mr Individual Questionnaire Paper White, Young, Green Other Questionnaire Paper Wicks, Mr K Individual Questionnaire Paper Wilkins, T Individual Questionnaire Electronic Williams, Mr A R Individual Questionnaire Paper Williams,Mr L Individual Questionnaire Paper Wiltshire County Council - Strategic Specific E-mail Planning Wiltshire County Council c/o Cluttons Other Letter Withall, Mr W Individual Questionnaire Paper Wood, Mr A individual Questionnaire Paper Woodland Trust Other Questionnaire Electronic World Heritage Site Officer Other Questionnaire Electronic Wright, Mrs S Individual Questionnaire Paper Young, Mr R Individual Questionnaire Paper Younger, K Individual Questionnaire Electronic

Workshops

Devizes Public Meeting

Name or Organisation DPD Body Altree, Mr & Mrs C Other Barber, J Individual Berry, R Individual Boother, R Individual Brown, Mr K D Individual Chapman, A Individual Clarke, Mr A Individual Collison, F. J Individual Cuckow, V Individual Dixon, L Individual Duck, Cllr T, KDC General

144 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

Friend, J Individual P Hatala, T Individual P Kennet & Avon Canal Trust Individual Kent, Mr & Mrs Q Other Kingsand, J Individual 19 Legge, Mr J.K Individual McSweeney, Mr D Individual Morgan, P Individual Morris, A & P Individual Netheravon Parish Council Other Norton, P & J Individual Oakford, I & E Individual Ormerod, Mrs V Individual Page, J Individual Pedder, P Individual Potter, P. Individual Purcell, A Individual Roberts, Mr J R Individual Rose, Mrs J Individual Savory, D & R Individual Sedgwick, Mr T Individual Sheppard, T Individual Smith, E Individual Stephenson, B Individual Trust for Devizes General Underwood, E & B Individual Walker, A Individual Webb, R Individual Winchcombe, Cllr Mrs P, KDC General

Devizes Stakeholder Meeting

Name or Organisation DPD Body Bishops Cannings PC, Clark, Mr E Individual Bishops Cannings PC, Combe Mrs J Individual Dawson, D Individual Devizes Development Partnership, Lay Mr P General Gamble, Cllr R, KDC General Grundy, Cllr L, KDC General Ody, Cllr J, KDC General Rugg, Cllr Mrs P, WCC General Urchfont Parish Council, Batt Mr A Specific Urchfont Parish Council, Newell Mr P Specific Urchfont PC, Mitchell N Specific Wiltshire County Council - Transport General Marlborough Public Meeting

145

Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P Name or Organisation DPD Body P Allen, R Individual Froxfield PC, Carlon, T Specific Francis, R Individual 19 Marlborough Town Council Specific Prasad, Mr C Individual Williams, L Individual

Marlborough Stakeholder Meeting

Name or Organisation DPD Body Savernake Parish Council Specific World Heritage Site Officer Other

Pewsey Public Meeting

Name or Organisation DPD Body Boden, E Individual Bowler- Reed, J. H. Individual Bromley, J Individual Burton, Mr P Individual Cattle, Ms M Individual Cook, Mr J Individual Dalryriple, C Individual Deck, J Individual Desforges, Mr P. W. Individual Fishlock, Mr R Individual Foxton, Mr P Individual Hames, A & T Individual Harding, Mr T F Individual Haskell, V Individual Haslam, B Individual Leighton, Mr D Individual Mason, Mrs P. Individual Mowatt, K Individual Sargeant, S. & Tubb, N. Individual Scott, Mr A Individual Tuxford, T. Individual Warry, K Individual

146 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

Pewsey Stakeholder Meeting P P Name or Organisation DPD Body Hayhoe, Cllr Mrs A, KDC General Pewsey Community Area Partnership General 19 Pewsey Parish Council, Keers Mrs P Specific Stanton St Bernard PC, Frankton, Mr M Specific Tarver, W Individual West, Mr A Individual Wilcot & Huish PC, Ferguson, Mr E Specific Wilcot & Huish PC, Fleet Mr R Specific Zweck, Cllr Mrs S, KDC General

Ludgershall Public Meeting

Name or Organisation DPD Body Dilks, M Individual Knight, K and M Individual Townsend, Mr I Individual

Tidworth Stakeholder Meeting

Name or Organisation DPD Body Collingbourne Ducis PC, Gill Mr P Specific Collingbourne Ducis PC, Winter Mrs N Specific Tidworth Community Area Partnership, General Tidworth & District Chamber of Commerce Tidworth Town Council, Jones Mr H Specific

147

Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

Appendix 20 – Questionnaire Summary Tables P P Section A: Vision Section B: Community Overviews

1. To what extent do you agree with 2. Which of the following reflects the 20 the draft vision for Kennet up to nature of your interest? 2021? Strongly disagree Devleoper / land

0% owner Interest group / 4% voluntary org. Disagree 8% 12% Strongly agree Statutory 19% organisation Neutral 3% 16%

Local buisness / employer 5%

Local resident Agree 80% 53%

3. To what extent do you agree with the assessment of the physical, economic and social characteristics of the community areas? 100% 90% Strongly disagree 80% 70% Disagree 60%

50% Neutral 40% 30% Agree 20% 10% Strongly agree 0% Devizes Marlborough Tidworth Pewsey 4. To what extent do you agree that the analysis of the planning policy issues facing each area is correct? 100%

90% Strongly disagree

80%

70% Disagree 60% 50% Neutral 40% 30% Agree 20%

10% Strongly agree 0% Devizes Marlborough Tidworth Pewsey

149

Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P 5. Which of the strategic development 6. If you have chosen 1B/1C as your P options would you favour within the preferred strategic development core strategy? option would you assign an even proportion of development to each Option 1A 20 centre. 11%

Yes Option 1C Option 1B No 47% 55% 34% 53%

7. Please highlight why you have chosen your preferred strategic development option.

Promotes Aids in the sustainable protection of the transport patterns environment

16% 15%

Promotes local employment opportunities Represents the 16% best distrubution for development Supports local 27% community objectives 12%

Encourages economic growth 14%

8. Do you agree with the potential 9. Which of the local development outcomes of your preferred option? options would you like to see in the core strategy? Option 2A No 15% 33%

Option 2B Yes 21% 67% Option 2C 64%

150 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

10. If you have chosen 2C please indicate the villages where small scale development to P meet local needs would be acceptable? P

140 120 20 100 80 60 40 20 0

s n n t ci el age u on b D an rchf P Bur e theravo Upavo U n rn e o N Ramsbury let itt gbou Great BedwynGreat Cheverell L lin / ol C ton ng avi L st We

11. Why have you selected your preferred local development option.

180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Supports local Assists local Encourages Supports local Encourages services and community diversification of housing need environmental facilities objectives employment improvements opportunities and new open space

151

Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P Equalities Monitoring P Sex Age range

20 9% 4%

Under 14 33% 7% 17% 3 Age 15-25

Male % Age 26-50 46% Female 54% Age 51-65 54% 37% Age 66-75

Over 75

Nature of respondents

Nature of Interest

330 350 300 250 200 150 100 32 50 22 11 16 19 0 Other Statutory owner Local organisation voluntary org. Local resident Local Interest group/ Interest Developer/ land business/employer

152 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

Place of residence or work P P Map of Kennet showing the origin of where people who responded to the consultation work or live 20 Number of comments Map of Kennet showing the origin of where people work or live 0 1-5 6-10 Aldbourne Og bo 11-25 St urn Geo e rg 26-40 e Winterbourne Monkton >41 F y Mildenhall f ie ld orough West Marlb Overton Bishops Savernake R Cannings o u n Wilcot B Great Bedwyn d w u r a & b Rowde y a Huish g e Seend Devizes Pewsey Potterne Wo North r ton Urchfont Newnton Marston E Collingbourne a s t Kingston a M e n e ar rt k g k o a o e n Chute t t s M L

l a e l l v

r e in Collingbourne Ducis r E g Chute e to v West n Enford e Forest h Lavington Ludgershall C Fittleton Tidworth

153

Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

Appendix 21 - Workshop & Exhibition Analysis P P

Workshop & Exhibition Summary 21 Purpose This appendix aims to compare comments taken from workshops and exhibitions that took place at each of the four community areas. There were 2 workshops and 2 days of exhibitions held at Pewsey, Tidworth, Devizes and Marlborough. The comments are analysed below in terms of their differences and similarities. When there is general consensus i.e. a comment is repeated at 2-3 of the exhibitions/ workshops within a community area, the comments are highlighted in yellow and considered as areas that need to be addressed in the core strategy. Issues raised that are specific to each community area are highlighted as well because these will help define key characteristics for that area in the core strategy. The main areas of concern for each community were then drawn together into one general table and if these comments appeared in 2 or more of the 3 columns they were highlighted in yellow and considered as areas of emerging consensus.

SUMMARIES

TIDWORTH COMMUNITY AREA

Objectives specific to Tidworth community area:

 2 people agreed with the general conclusions of the SWOT  Improve infrastructure then develop  Facilities for children needed  More balance between civilians and military needed

General Objectives:

 Tidworth’s residents want growth in Tidworth and Ludgershall more so than Devizes and Marlborough  Need broadband  Better services  Low cost houses needed

Agreements:

 Preferred option 1b (strategic options) i.e. strategic growth in Devizes and Tidworth/ Ludgershall  No to 2c option ie small scale local development directed to Pewsey, Market Lavington and selected larger villages  Housing essential to retail revival  Need key worker houses, much MOD rented- agrees with questionnaires  Better bus service needed  Road links need improving  Need growth in Tidworth and Ludgershall- limited by availability of land and infrastructure, resources, amenities and services

155 Core Strategy Options Consultation A Statement of Community Involvement

P P Disagreements:

Some argue a balance between civilians and military is not needed but most argue more 21 of a balance is needed

PEWSEY COMMUNITY AREA

Objectives specific to Pewsey community area:

 9 people agreed with the general conclusions about strengths, weaknesses and threats and opportunities ( SWOT) in the Pewsey community area and 1 disagreed  Free parking  Work from home  Careful consideration needed into news shops that are allowed- need a range  Lack of infrastructure  Lack of facilities for the young  Concerns about development at Ball Road  Affordable housing needed  More jobs needed  Better buses necessary

General objectives:

 Most people think Tidworth/ Ludgershall should accommodate the most housing growth  Most voted for Great Bedwyn to receive small scale development  Devizes, Marlborough and Tidworth should receive the majority of growth  Small scale local development should be directed at Pewsey/ Market Lavington and selected larger villages

Agreements:

Most argue small scale growth is needed otherwise Pewsey will become dormitory and decline

Disagreements:

Mixed views on development - Some are worried about appropriateness of Ball Road due to lack of access

Some want infill of brownfield sites including employment sites whereas some people don’t.

156 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

P MARLBOROUGH COMMUNITY AREA P

Objectives specific to community area: 21  6 people agreed with the SWOT conclusions  Free parking  Better supermarket  More parking needed  Small development needed in small community areas around Marlborough  No development in areas liable to flooding

General objectives:

 The people of Marlborough gave most of their votes to Devizes as being the best location to accommodate growth  Small scale local development should be directed at Pewsey, Market Lavington and larger villages  Voted for small scale development to village of Pewsey

Agreements:

 Cheaper supermarket needed  More parking needed  Concern about high house prices

Disagreements:

Whether to develop or not

DEVIZES COMMUNITY AREA

Objectives specific to community area:

 Want housing to go to Tidworth/ Ludgershall  1 person agreed with SWOT  Develop housing in Seend  Assize courts need developing  Roundway P.C would allow small amount of development

General objectives:

 Develop old industrial estates for housing  Deal with traffic issues  Don’t develop further- don’t need McDonald’s, Primark etc  Want small scale local development directed at Pewsey/ Market Lavington and selected larger villages  The favoured village for small scale local development is Pewsey as long as significant infrastructure improvements take place

157 Core Strategy Options Consultation A Statement of Community Involvement

P P Agreements:

 Buses should be promoted more 21  No land left to develop  Infrastructure is limited  Village development desired  Keep independent small shops

80 % of people at the Devizes public meeting voted to say they don’t want more housing developments taking place within the town

Disagreements:

 Whether new shops are needed or not  Some want a ring road and some say it would be too expensive and eat into the AONB

DISTRICT WIDE SUMMARY

 Villages need broadband  Free parking  Infrastructure then houses  Shortage of land  Improve public transport  Low cost housing needed  Promote small businesses  Facilities for children  Encourage home working  Build in villages

158 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement P P Table 1: Pewsey Community Area Summary of Issues

21 THEME Exhibition Stakeholder Meeting Public Meeting Housing  New homes should be built  Employment first then housing  Access to Ball Road a to environmentally  Housing not affordable problem sustainability specs and be  Appropriate housing linked to employment  Concern about mix of affordable homes  Affordable housing needed

Economic  Careful consideration into  Work from home  More jobs needed news shops that are  Types of jobs need to reflect cost of  Small development allowed- need a range housing could help shops  Lack of infrastructure  Not enough B&Bs  Home working to be  Poor infrastructure puts people off starting encouraged business  Small offices  Need jobs for locals especially the young  Remote working  Need range of business- mixed economy  Tourism growing in importance  Jobs mainly service industries Transport  Keep free parking  Dedicated bus service  Free parking  Railway important Community  Communication problems- broadband  Use of IT needed, mobile reception  Little for the young  Fear of too much growth

Environment  Do & Don’t infill  Protect the AONB employment sites  Limited brown field site

159 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P P Table 2: Tidworth Community Area Summary of Issues

21 THEME Exhibition Stakeholder Meeting Public Meeting Housing  Improve infrastructure then  Low cost houses needed  Improve develop  Need key worker houses, much MOD infrastructure then rented develop  Housing crucial to retail revival  No brownfield site in Tidworth area for housing Economic  Need growth in Tidworth and Ludgershall  Tesco destroying local businesses Transport  Better bus service needed  Road links need improving

Community  Facilities for children  Need broadband  Balance of civilians and  Sustainability military not needed, more balanced maybe  Better services needed  Space to develop but current infrastructure is not sufficient  91% want development

Environment  More trees wanted  Need more space

160 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P P Table 3: Marlborough Community Area Summary Of Issues

THEME Exhibition Stakeholder Meeting Public Meeting 21 Housing  Parking with houses needed  Don’t segregate affordable housing  Choice of housing  Small scale develop in  Houses too expensive needed to match surrounding villages individual needs

Economic  New supermarket  More jobs needed as well as homes  New supermarket Transport  More parking  Free parking Community  Elderly population increasing Environment  Building too much infill  Sustainability of town  Sensitive design essential

161 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P P Table 4: Devizes Community Area Summary Of Issues

21 THEME Exhibition Stakeholder Meeting Public Meeting Housing  Don’t build more houses  Village development  Build in villages  Use old industrial sites for housing desirable  Misfit between housing types before Greenfield sites and jobs available Economic  Encourage small businesses  Independent small shops  Congestion discourages  Don’t need more shops, improve businesses existing  Infrastructure can’t cope with more housing  Jobs not highly paid Transport  Traffic jams  Park & Ride?  Transport in villages need  More buses needed  Public transport poor tackling  1 way system help?  Traffic congestion  Traffic lights help?  Encourage cycling  Condition of roads  Ring Road  Bypass? Public transport poor Community  Services need to increase not  Rural broadband too slow decrease as population rises  Need new hospital  Continual decline in services becoming a real issue Environment  Retain environment  Sustainable growth  Sustainable communities and  Lack of land development needed  Don’t develop up to the downs  Green space being lost and not replaced  Need more cultural heritage, needs protecting  Renewable energy

162 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P P Table 5: District wide agreements

21 THEME Exhibition Stakeholder Meeting Public Meeting Housing  Tidworth: Infrastructure needs  Pewsey: Housing not affordable  Tidworth: Infrastructure needed before to come before housing housing  Tidworth: Low cost housing needed  Pewsey,Devizes,Tidworth &  Marlborough, Pewsey: Cheaper Ludgershall: Develop Tidworth  Devizes: Village development housing needed & Ludgershall  Devizes: Build in villages  Marlborough, Pewsey, Devizes: Small scale  Marlborough, Devizes: Housing needs development in Pewsey/ Market to match jobs available lavington

 Marlborough: Place housing in Devizes Economic  Pewsey: Infrastructure needed  Tidworth, Devizes: Keep local  Marlborough: Better shops needed businesses  Marlborough: New supermarket needed

 Devizes: Encourage small businesses

Transport  Devizes: Roads need improving  Tidworth, Pewsey: Better bus service  Tidworth: Buses need improving

 Marlborough: More parking  Tidworth, Devizes: Road links need  Devizes: Roads in poor condition improvement

163 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P P  Marlborough, Pewsey: Free Parking  Pewsey: Free parking 21  Devizes:Public transport poor

Community  Pewsey, Tidworth: No facilities for the  Tidworth: Lack of facilities for young children  Pewsey, Tidworth, Devizes: Broadband needed in villages

 Pewsey, Devizes: home working

 Tidwoth:Lack of land, infrastructure, resources, amenities and services

Environment  Devizes: No more land  Pewsey: Sustainable construction  Devizes: Sustainable development

 Tidworth: Lack of land

164 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

Conclusion P P General comments which reoccurred in all of the community areas seem hot topics that need dealing with. Devizes, Pewsey, Tidworth and Ludgershall all voted for strategic housing development in Tidworth and Ludgershall. It seems the best option since the 21 suggested community is willing to accommodate the new housing and is backed by other communities too, rather than developing an area where the locals don’t welcome it.

Numerous comments regarding working from home were received and many commented on the need for better broadband facilities. The promotion of small businesses from home would not only improve the economy of the concerned community it would also reduce traffic congestion as there would be no need to commute to work therefore meaning there would be less pressure on roads and public transport. If people could work where they lived then they are more likely to bring money to their community in terms of food shopping as they would no longer be doing shopping away from the community where they worked.

It seems that there is a lack of infrastructure in villages and this needs dealing with before sustainable, affordable housing development takes places. More facilities are wanted for children, public transport needs improving and also more buses are wanted and more often.

To conclude, the main points appear to be that free parking in all the communities is wanted to encourage locals to shop at home rather than going elsewhere. Public transport needs improving and the condition of roads need addressing. Small scale development in villages is favoured and the promotion of small businesses needs tackling. New housing should match the jobs available in the area so that houses are affordable and don’t push locals away.

165

Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

Appendix 22- Consultation Process Feedback P P Consultation Process Feedback 22 1. Purpose

This appendix aims to compare views expressed by people who attended the meetings for the ’issues’ consultation in March 2007 to those of people who attended the meetings for ‘options’ consultations in 2008 and consider the comments submitted on the process of stakeholder engagement for the options consultation. It is hoped to show that Kennet District Council’s methods of consultation are improving and it is a way of assessing whether Kennet is responding to observations previously made.

2. Analysis of workshops

In 2007 there were 4 consultation meetings and in 2008 there were 8. At the end of these meetings guests were asked to voluntarily fill in an exit questionnaire anomalously. There were 5 simple questions about the event:  Was the pamphlet clear?  Did you have enough time to express your views at the meeting?  How could events be improved in future?  Was the length of the event about right?  What is the most appropriate time of day for these events?

As people were not obliged to complete the questionnaires most chose not to e.g. in 2008, at one meeting of 50 people no replies we handed in whereas at smaller meetings people seemed more willing to leave feedback. A total of 79 questionnaires were returned in 2007 whereas in 2008 only 18 replies were received.

2a. Exit questionnaires

Q1. Degree of understanding

CORE STRATEGY ISSUES RAISING Did the issues papers provide a clear CORE STRATEGY OPTIONS understanding of issues? Did the pamplet circulated before the meeting provide 7% you with a clear understanding of the issues?

Very clear 0% 18% Reasonably clear 39% Very clear Not very clear Reasonably clear 54% Not very clear

82%

In 2007 the core strategy issues raised were regarded as ‘reasonably clear’ by the majority of those surveyed (54%) and this increased to 82% in 2008. However, within a year a ‘very clear understanding’ of the issues decreased from 39% to only 18%. The format of the consultation material was quite different in each year. The

167 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P pamphlet in 2008 seems to have been less clear given this reduction in the ‘very clear P understanding’ category.

Q2. Format of the event 22 CORE STRATEGY ISSUES RAISING CORE STRATEGY OPTIONS Was there adequate opportunity to make your views known? At the meeting do you feel that you had adequate opportunities to make your views known?

19% 11% 0% Adequate opportunity Limited opportunity Insufficient Adequate opportunity opportunity Limited opportunity 81% Insufficient opportunity 89%

Between 2007’s ‘issues’ and 2008’s ‘options’ the opportunity to make views ‘known adequately’ rose from 81% to 89% and the ‘limited opportunity’ category dropped from 19% to 11%. In both 2007 and 2008, nobody thought there was ‘insufficient opportunity’ for expressing views.

It is important to emphasise that there were few returns from the larger meetings in Devizes and Pewsey. At these meetings there was no group discussion, instead it was only possible to carry out one main discussion and so everyone had to wait their turn to speak. This may have made it difficult for people to express themselves as time ran out very quickly and the more vocal people were able to dominate the discussion. As time ran out at the larger events guests were not asked to complete exit questionnaires. This meant that those people who felt that they didn’t get a chance to speak also didn’t have the opportunity to make their views known via the exit questionnaire either. The increase in opportunity to get views ‘known adequately’ can be explained by the fact that at the smaller meetings, where there were fewer people, it was possible to split up into small discussion groups where views could be expressed easily.

In question 3 respondents were asked: How could we improve future events to allow participants to express their views?

Suggestions from 2008’s questionnaires included:

 Make sure Carolyn participates  More time  More attendees  The roles of central, regional, county and local government could be more clearly explained to clarify planning options mix  More publicity might increase numbers  Encourage more community leaders/stakeholders to attend somehow. 10 for the Pewsey community area is not really enough! Meetings should be held in summer, in winter people don't turn out  Perhaps combine with larger parish council all electors meeting

168 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

 Very good led discussion. I don't think it could be improved P  Adequate - food facilities essential P  Clear summary at outset of questions meeting seeks to resolve  Clear understanding on what central government and region is imposing through R.S.S. 22

In 2007 it was also suggested that more publicity about meetings was necessary in order to increase numbers of those attending.

Additional comments made were that more information should be made available to the public before the meetings as well as information about the meetings format beforehand as this may have encouraged more to come. It was also suggested that an open forum debate would have been useful and refreshments would encourage more numbers.

There was a lot of consistency between the views expressed in 2007 and 2008. The process for 2008 did try to respond to comments about more publicity in 2007. 8 instead of 4 meetings were held, day time exhibitions were held in each community area and a free newspaper was used to distribute the pamphlets. However, it still seems that the message about meetings still did not reach the public adequately.

Q3. Length of meeting

CORE STRATEGY ISSUES RAISING CORE STRATEGY OPTIONS Was the event the right length?

Do you consider that this event was? 0% 13% 21%

Too long Too long About right About right Too short Too short

79%

87%

In both 2007 and 2008 nobody thought that the event was too long. When issues were first being raised more people thought that the event was too short (21%) compared to once the options had been revealed when only 13% thought that the event was too short. In 2007, 79% of those asked were happy with the event length whereas by 2008 this rose to 87%. In 2007 the meetings were programmed to be an hour long whilst in 2008 the meetings were one and a half hours long.

169 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P Q4. Time of meeting P CORE STRATEGY ISSUES RAISING CORE STRATEGY OPTIONS When is the most appropriate time for meetings to be held? 22 Which of these do you consider to be the 10% most appropriate time for public meetings to be held? 0% 18%

Daytime Daytime Tw ilight Twilight (5pm) 34% Ev ening Evenings(>7pm) 56%

82%

In 2008, 82% agreed that public meetings are best carried out in the evenings followed by 18% voting for twilight meetings. In both 2007 and 2008 few people thought day time meetings were appropriate probably due to the fact that most people have work commitments and therefore evenings were favoured followed by twilight.

Nature of Respondents

The end section on the exit questionnaire asked about respondent’s personal details and was used to gather information for equalities monitoring. Not everybody completed this section as it wasn’t compulsory. However in 2007 out of those who did answer 62% were male, 8 % had a long term limiting illness or disability, most (53%) were aged 51-65, 24% were aged 66-75 and 100% considered themselves white British.

Results were very similar in 2008, 69% of respondents were male and 6% had a long term limiting illness or disability. Nearly half of the replies (49%) were from people aged 51-65 and 38% were 66-75. Again all respondents were from a white British background. This shows that meetings are consistently attracting similar sorts of people each year and it would be beneficial to try and attract different people to future meetings if possible, in order to gain different opinions and a broader perspective. In 2007 23% of guests were under 50 and in 2008 only 13 % were less than 50 which ideally needs changing.

CORE STRATEGY OPTIONS CORE STRATEGY ISSUES RAISING Age Range 1% Age range 22% 24% 0% 13% <14 Under 14 15-25 15-25 26-50 38% 26-50 51-65 51-65 66-75 66-75 Over 75 >75

49% 53%

170 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

2b. Comments within workshops P P Feedback from 2008‘s Devizes public meeting suggested that a recording of what has been said at the meetings needs to be introduced for future events. 22 People still have the opinion that pamphlet design and distribution needs more improvement, suggestions included posting out the questionnaires. It was also noted at the Devizes public meeting that the free newspaper used to distribute questionnaires (The Star) was not a successful method as most people tend to bin the inserts and not everybody receives that newspaper. It was suggested that it may be more beneficial to post out questionnaires or include them with council tax bills.

3. Comments returned in letters and on Questionnaires

All of the comments on the process of stakeholder engagement are listed below. In summary in relation to the pamphlet people thought the content was confusing making it hard to make comparisons between communities; many thought it was badly designed and included irrelevant or unsupported facts and some said crucial information was missing or understated e.g. traffic and infrastructure.

The distribution of pamphlets through the use of the free newspaper did not seem to be a popular method of delivery and many thought the consultations were under publicised. A general and significant conclusion was that most believed the distribution of the questionnaire was flawed and that the document should have been mailed to every household in Kennet.

The following comments reflect individuals concerns:

Ball Family Trust 525 Local option maps A4 road westward from Marlborough is shown as south of the river Kennett when in fact the A4 as far as Silbury Hill is actually north of the river.

Berwick Bassett & W'bourne Monkton PC 1703 Please also note our concern at lack of direct consultation our residents who did not receive door to door leaflet. We have done our best to distribute information but have not been given sufficient paperwork to distribute to individual households it is an irepresentive consultation if some areas are directly approached and others not. Please ensure that the sporadic distribution is recorded.

Cuckow, V 1989 The facts contained in the three areas under discussion appear to have been selected on a purely random basis and do not form useful comparators for a decision-making process. Useful comparators, for example, would have been the availability of existing amenities and recent levels of housing development and existing Infrastructure.

Dames, Basil & Elizabeth 2028 Questionnaire too detailed to be answered meaningfully. Lack of publicity

171 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P considering sit was such an important consultation. P Davison, Mr P 1985

22 Decided not to waste time filling in Questionnaire as don't think you are interested in our opinions.

Dixon, L 1954 No 'other general comments' field provided. I am shocked, angry and disappointed at the standard of the consultation.

The communication was poor- the questionnaire tucked into the free paper just gets chucked away as don't expect something so important to be in that newspaper. Some people don't even receive the free paper. Communication should have commenced months ago and should be sent out to every household with the council tax notifications.

Information provided in the questionnaire is extremely complicated, most of the local population don't understand a high proportion of it. The facts presented are very arbitrary and unscientific. Advertisement of the public forums and discussions was poor. In Devizes you obviously didn't expect many as booked such a small venue. Management of the event was amateurish and inadequate. Why was there not a more senior hosting by council officers and members, with a proper agenda and chairmanship, a microphone, and clear and concise presentation of key facts and figures, with source material? I have no faith that processing of responses will be handled in a scientific and professional manner.

Enfield Parish Council

Enford Parish Council found the size of the document difficult to handle. The format prevented A4 copying to distribute to others in the parish. They also felt its purpose was unclear – a poster?

______

Fyfield & West Overton Parish Council 32 Supplementary comment from chairman - thought the document was extremely good - clear and interesting.

Hartley, Mr B 1810 I don't believe that the ordinary person can understand "Kennet: Making Places for the future". I believe that I am an ordinary person.

Hatala, T 1948 Information given makes it hard to make like for like comparisons. The pamphlet does not give the impression of its importance, should be entitled ' Future housing developments? Your choice'. Community overview info does not enable the public to make a rational decision. Info does not enable a comparison to be made between

172 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

communities. P P Info from 'K.D.C housing needs survey 2005' should have been included in pamphlet. 22 Hayhoe, Cllr Mrs A, KDC 328 Poor distribution and publicity of the pamphlets. Most people won't attend the meetings, need to think of a way to engage with ordinary members of the public. Pamphlet is too complex for members of the public. Need simpler ways of beginning the debate.

Lane, R 1993 There was little space on form for comments.

Llewellyn, L 2029 The consultation document is not very user friendly, full of planning terminology that was very off-putting. Found that people who are actively involved in a group campaigning about the Quakers Walk development in Devizes were unaware of this document, suggesting that it is not reaching a wide audience. Q8. Very general definitions which could mean many things. I was unable to compare risk of damage from one option to the other. The scale of damage is not qualified to allow comparison or determination of the least damaging option. How do we know what is at risk without knowing the sites available. No information given if there is a risk to Devizes in Options 1B or IC. No indication of perceived number of houses without risk to environmental quality. What is threshold of houses before causing?

Maclachlan, Mr A 1991 We were unhappy at the lack of clarity and consistency in the document's information which all members found to be confusing and unsatisfactory. The design and layout were considered unhelpful too.

Marlborough Chamber of Commerce 677 Member of the chamber of commerce only made aware of consultation a few days before meeting.

Marsh, L & C 2032 We are disappointment in both Kennet and the parish council for not making greater efforts to raise awareness about this consultation.

Mc Sweeney, Mr D 95 The process was not conducted in a manner which allowed all the effected parties (every council tax payer in Devizes) an opportunity to take part. The pamphlet which formed the basis of the consultation was badly designed. The document made it difficult to weigh up options. Pamphlet was full of irrelevant or unsupported

173 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P facts. Crucial information was missing or understated e.g. traffic and infrastructure. P The text was too dense for public consumption and badly structured. The document was poorly distributed. Newspaper inserts get binned and important documents shouldn't be distributed with supermarket offers. Other parts of Kennet simply did 22 not receive a copy of the local paper so received no questionnaire. In local parishes some people had no access to the information as didn't receive posters or see copies distributed in the libraries. The document should have been mailed to every household in Kennet, otherwise the consultation is too badly flawed to be of any use. The exhibition took place at a time to suit the planners. Why was the exhibition not staged at a weekend? A week-long installation at the town hall would have been more in keeping with the importance of this exercise. On previous occasions KDC have had stalls in the Brittox or in the Shambles on Thursday market day, which was a good way of reaching a large number of Devizes people. Why was this approach not used? The Council was not properly represented. It was appalling that only 4 Devizes Councillors were there. The meeting was not advertised much in advance. The meeting hosts were ill prepared. Many questions were asked from the floor to which Mr White was unable to provide answers. The representative from the traffic modelling organisation was even worse. He was floored by some basic questions from the audience. I am astonished that Kennet place so much faith in the bad information and wild guesses which seem to underpin the traffic modelling report. To summarise, given the important nature of the decisions that will be taken, this consultation exercise was botched in almost every possible way. It should be done again, and properly.

Mitchell, Mr K 1889 Support your efforts at involvement, and understand the complexity of issues/ outcomes- but I wonder what response rate you will get from across the social spectrum!

Patching, Mr M 1423 Consultation exercises only often attract people who are fundamentally opposed to development.

Persimmon Special Projects Western 2031 Need clarity on LGR and LDS timetable.

Sadlier, Mrs V C 1393 Awful questionnaire, makes me wonder if you care!

Scorer, Mr T 1223 Questions the distribution of leaflets in newspaper- most don't receive it and if they do they discard insertations. Why not sent out by post office?

The accompanying document is unwieldly, confusing and difficult to interpret. Info is not displayed in a structured manner. Info in community overview is not consistent for each community area. Development seems to refer to new homes only, no reference to developing necessary support for any increase in population. There was little consideration given to the existence or the provision of a basic infrastructure e.g. adequate road links, hospital services etc. Inconsistence about

174 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement A

whether Pewsey is a village or town. No windfall developments not included in the P 6000 new homes proposed for Kennet. Councillors did not approve a final draft of P the material until it appeared in the gazette.

Online questionnaire- Not enough area allowed to view responses. The numbering 22 was different between online and paper questionnaires.

Simons, A 1243 Document far too complicated. Assume most villages have a local doctor's surgery.

South West Regional Assembly 100 We think the document was very user friendly and innovative.

Tanner, Mrs J 1986 Method of delivery of document flawed- many throw away free paper without looking at it as don't expect such a significant document to be in it, just supermarket offers etc. The library had hidden your document away. There is an inconsistency in the information given about the different community areas, and in phraseology. This makes true comparisons impossible. There is no reference to the attention you are giving to infrastructure.

Thompson, J 92 Online questionnaire recorded wrong response answers to q10, always took option 2c as your answer- therefore a false report and not a true reflection of people’s true wishes.

Trust for Devizes 1122 Consultation process has been very poor. Free newspaper circulation was a mistake. Devizes public meeting was badly run. The consultation document is poor and a bad effort - it is confusing and complex. Traffic consultant at meeting on 5th June used technical jargon and shaky knowledge. In places the leaflet is alarmingly unbalanced.

Walker, A 1951 The meeting was not well publicised. The pamphlet was a triumph of muddle and jargon. The meeting was sidetracked by Quakers Walk.

Warren, Mrs J 2001 Section b question 4 is confusing and hard to make comparisons. Section C 6a- this is not a yes/no question.

Distribution of questionnaire is flawed. The star paper gets binned so most didn't see the questionnaire and some areas of Devizes don't receive the paper. Content is confusing.

Wright, Mrs S 1984 I find this whole questionnaire completed incomprehensible and therefore have not competed it fully.

175 Core Strategy Options Consultation Kennet Local Development Framework A Statement of Community Involvement

P 4. Conclusion P Kennet’s method of consultation appears not to have improved overall. Unfortunately the percentage of respondents who voted for the top category of clear 22 understanding has dropped over the year showing clear concern. This obviously needs to be addressed for future consultations.

On the contrary, the team has responded positively since 2007’s feedback by increasing publicity through the use of questionnaires being distributed in the free newspaper. However, the views shown in 2008’s questionnaires still suggest that not enough publicity is taking place.

Within a year consultations have improved in terms of opportunities given for people to make their views known. Also the length of events has also been sufficiently adapted to meet the needs expressed by 2007’s respondents.

176